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

...to give it its serious connotation, I have to say that it is certainly obedience, because it is patience. You can -- the expression in German came into usage after the Reformation because -- the princes who took over from the Papacy the responsibility for the -- protecting the orthodox faith on the continent -- every prince had his own establishment -- these princes were responsible for the cultivation of the land. They were the first conservationists. Long before any conservationist ever reached these shores, and before Mr. Muir created the California parks, the German princes saw to it that the woodland in Eur- -- in Germany was preserved. Over 800 years, the percentage of forests has not changed in Germany. And that's a great achievement. And this was called "Kultur," culture. Die Landeskultur, the -- Kultur of the country was -- had from the very beginning something to do with the length of time needed to create, construct anything worthwhile.

And I'm afraid this word in this country and your translation has to be brought back to this meaning if it shall not destroy you. Culture has nothing to do with china, or with ceramics, or with painting, or with poetry. But it has to do with obedience to the laws of the earth, and of the Heaven, too. No child prodigy comes under the expression, "Cultura," because it is not given time to develop. All the sins of the 19th century and the 20th century, of your speed-up program -- what I said last time, that if a child is allowed to be a freshman -- at 13 and-a-half years in the university -- these people should be beaten up who allow this. That's uncultured.

So -- in the translation into the English, which only has occurred really in the last 30 years, you must know -- the word is of -- is quite recent an intruder in the American jargon -- has lost its solemnity, its religious values of going slow, you see -- of letting grow, of not being able to do things by your will -- but observe the laws of growth as they are, and as we cannot change them. So you see immediately there is -- obedience is at the beginning, this hearkening, you see, to the -- slow and low whisper that is just the opposite from the Devil's whisper. The Devil tells you you can have all your pleasures immediately and patience says you cannot.

And -- I had a friend in -- in Alberta who wrote me very ki- -- no, it was in Saskatoon: "We have much civilization, but of course we have no culture." Well, what did he mean? He had lived in my house in Germany years before, and now he felt that things at the frontier in Canada had to -- done very quickly, everything improvised, you see. So he felt deeply, you see, that this slow growth wasn't there. You can have -- culture, I think -- if you need this word at all. Only

when you feel that something has already been going on for a long time, you enter upon it and you don't wish to destroy it. You don't want to mechanize it. You don't want to exploit it. You don't want to take advantage of it, you see.

So the Kultur is older than the living generation. And for this reason, the generation feels obliged to wait and see so that it may reach the grandchildren. This country, as you know, since the 17th century has been threatened by the opposite situation. In 1675, a synod of Westminster in, I think, in Massachusetts, gathered and the Divines decided that this country was in great danger -- to become the matter of one age -- {Res unius etatis} was the Latin expression. And that I think has remained the symptom of this country to this day; that even if you do things for the long run, like conservation, you have to persuade the living generation that it is for their benefit, for their pleasure. I don't think that the conserv- -- the parks in this country are for the pleasure of the living generation, but they are our responsibility to the year 3000 or 2500. We cannot -- kill the soil, which must bear fruits later.

Now all the tactics that are needed to bring pressure on Congress so that we allot some money for these parks, you see, today have to be clothed in some propaganda for the benefit of all these recreationists during summertime. They should know that they are absolutely unimportant! And the -- conservation is needed whether 10 million people go into these parks or not. And as soon as these 10 million people understand how unimportant they are in the face of the responsibility for the long-range future, the better it would be. I think this is just advertising tactics to tell the people that they will enjoy it. Enjoyment is not a reason for conservation alone. It's a byproduct. This would be again obedience, you see, because there's always somebody third present, the future. And what are we? These -- these few little mice we are, running around there in these parks.

This language has not been spoken. Here -- therefore the word "culture" has made an impression in the last 30 years. But since I'm deeply concerned with the abuse of these words, that it really means the Ph.D. and some such ridiculous things, that -- I would like to -- you -- to -- tell you when for the first time the word became a slogan, because it is perhaps of some interest to go back into this history.

At first, for 300 years from Luther's days in the 16th century -- also the days of Henry VIII -- to the French Revolution, it just meant the obedience to the very poor and scanty soil of the little principalities in Europe, in Central Europe. Then the French Revolution came, and many Germans traveled to Paris to see the new miracle of freedom and brother- -- fraternity, and equality. Of course, they found -- not one of the three -- none of them -- but they found a guillotine.

And they were frightened. And so there was a violent reaction. And one of the deepest German thinkers, Wilhelm von Humboldt, wrote home to his wife and to his friends that Germans had to reconsider their values, that what the French proclaimed as civilisation, as civilization, seemed to him a haphazard and shortlived thing. And so he -- played up, so to speak, the German patience and slow -- slow -- going-slow principle, as Kultur. And at that moment, in 1795, this changeling, Kultur -- culture then entered its second verse, you see, a new career. Now it didn't mean just the cultivation of the soil in its proper way. But it also meant the human behavior as -- through creative arts, and the patience, you see, with regard to results that you couldn't do by willpower in -- a fortnight, but only the slow growth of centuries might -- produce.

So, is this sufficient? Anything else, please?

(Does that apply also, though, to the Church?)

Pardon me?

(Does that explanation also apply to the Church?

To the -- church?

(Yes.)

Well, the byword of the Church since antiquity has been {Patiens quia ‘terna} patient because eternal. You see, what we -- what the Church is -- Father {Russack} again will forgive me, that I try to know something beside what he knows -- that all churches, you see, are criticized by this epit- -- epithet. Any church has, of course, some elements of passing interest. The language of the Church is our modern English, but that is not the eternal language of the Church. What is eternal in the Church needs this patience toward the sensations of the day. You see, the Church has to survive any fashion. And a fashionable church is not a church, even if it is on Broadway, or Fifth Avenue, or Park Avenue. I mean, it doesn't help to be fashionable. And if you only show your hat and your new dress on Easter Sunday, it just isn't Easter. It is your new dress, then -- prevails. So {Patiens quia ‘terna} -- patient because eternal -- is the slogan with which the Church fights its -- her own temptations, you see, to be modern, to be up to date. It's all unimportant, because the Church must live through all the fashions of all the times, or there isn't a church. And most people hate to hear this, because they think we have to be progressive, and we have to march forward with the times, and yesterday is not today. Yes, but today is just yesterday, you see. That is, in the eyes of the Church, this day which we live here is already yesterday. In the eyes of God, it is just one whim, one wink, one

moment, you see. And so this is -- is it -- does it satisfy you?

(Not quite. Because you said the people that were running around through this generation like mice, we think -- I think it's tremendously important what this generation does in this church, which is part of the great tradition of -- of 19 centuries, and so I wonder if the Church and culture aren't somewhat welded together as being more important than...)

Dead culture.

(...fleeting mice or -- or just patience. I mean, it's just terribly important what we do today. And if -- as far as style goes, I don't understand that. I mean, the hat on the head. I'm thinking of the great stream of catholic philosophy that's come down. I -- I -- by catholic, I mean the great meaning of "catholic.")

I -- I am not quite sure that we understand each other.

(No, I'm sorry.)

Every generation ex- -- must expect to be judged by the dross it produces, and the wastepaper, and the -- the -- the destruction, and by the plantation that goes on. That you will agree with, I mean. Rhode Island is called "Providence and plantations," because you plant it for the future, and every generation has so much membership in the Church as it sacrifices the present for the future. So any parent -- father who is -- decides to marry and forgoes the pleasures of the moment for this continence and for this self-discipline, sacrifices for his children. That's why it is difficult to get married, because you forgo, of course, very many pleasant things. In the moment in which he enters this -- into the sacrament of marriage, which is for the husband much more difficult than for the woman, he is willing to say that his life takes second seat in the respects of having children, and providing for them, and feeling responsible for their upbringing, their education. In this moment, he is a member -- active member of the eternal in our lives, you see, because he forgoes the complete fulfillment of his own personality, you see. He's indulging in -- in -- in the -- what has been the sermon in the valley in the last hundred years, "Be yourself," you see, "and develop all your -- faculties," and so. Nobody who does this can be a good father, I mean. The beginning of fatherhood is that you cannot develop all your faculties. Is this -- isn't this quite eloquent?

We are so secularized today, of course, that people do not believe that there is anything that can stand outside the year 1962 and can shine into this year -- 1962. But all sacraments mean -- try to do this, make you and me aware that our present, own life, you see, is only a link in a chain and cannot be this

link in the chain if we -- think of our own time as the only time. The other times must be present. And this representation is the duty of the Church, you see. To represent from Adam to the -- through the last judgment day the whole of time, while we are in a -- divine service. The meaning is, you see, that what happens to us in our own lifetime is very small, compared to the importance that the whole creative process must go on.

Ja?

This is my last meeting with you and I must try to pull together what -- I have done in the previous five meetings. I have tried to prepare you for what is the content of today, for acknowledging the real place of speech in biology, in the life-and-death struggle of -- this earth, which is always in the throes of death, destruction, annihilation, extinction, drying-up, sterility, and decay. Death is upon us. And every generation has to create a larger humanity, because the way in which the spirit, or the word, the speech, keeps us going -- despite our own mortality -- is that we have to move in ever larger circles. Today we have to face the whole of mankind for this very reason because if not, we perish. But this has been the case when the first cities got together and founded a country. The -- the power of peace between men is the power of conservation of the human race. And speech is -- the method by which this is constantly achieved. The program of -- of humanity is not in the hands of parties or politicians, but it is in this first fact that man has received this power of speech so that he may make peace. Peace is the paradoxical experience; it can exist between a woman and a man against all appearances. They pursue each other. They want each other. They torment each other. They divorce each other. And yet you all know that there are words, speaken with -- spoken with conviction, who hold this couple together. And the first peace made on earth, therefore, was the peace between Adam and Eve. I always am so sorry that the ministry and the people who poke fun at the Bible only mention the fall of man and never mention the fact that Adam and Eve, after all, stayed married, and had a very nice son called Seth.

And, this is a true story, of course, that when God in the fifth chapter of Genesis calls man "Adam," he includes Eve into the story, so that from the very -- the -- first experience of mankind is the experience of the worst warfare that exists in the world, the battle between the sexes. And it is very silly -- as we educate children to think it is difficult to have peace between Russia and America. That's very easy. Both have a wrong system.

But it is very miraculous that the worst fever that we have -- usually spring fever -- that this can be pacified, that there can be peace between the sexes. And you think the other way around, I know. I am quite alone with my admiration for marriage and my little esteem for politics. It is very easy to have --

hold peace between Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Kennedy. But it is terribly difficult to have peace between husband and wife. And you don't -- are not astonished where you should be astonished, and therefore you read all these newspaper -- this is newspaper stuff. But the difficulty is to pacify the sexes. There is nothing more cruel, nothing mehr devastating than the war between those sexes. If you think of the victims from venereal disease, from brothels, from prostitution -- from perversion -- all the men who from fear of the other sex go pervert, you -- you know -- look at -- all -- all just around how many, how much life is there destroyed. That's very serious. And we haven't found -- a cure-all for this. In politics, we have all kinds of ways of threatening each other so that we keep -- keep reasonable. I always suspect the people who talk too big in politics, that there's something wrong in their household.

The rank and file of mankind has plenty to do to keep peace at home; and if they do this, they also know how to make peace in the world at large. But the professional politicians have some reason to stay away from home.

The -- the famous story of a minister of justice in Prussia -- he was a very great jurist, Mr. von Beseler, a very famous name -- and he was intolerable in his office. But one day he began to be very sweet. His wife had died.

If you would for one moment believe me -- I know it is difficult -- that the war between the sexes is the original warfare between man and man, and that this is the seat of the problem of our lives, and of our union, and of our United Nations -- that in any -- every marriage on the one-hand side, a new nation begins, and two nations may make peace among each other -- you would really look at history, I think, with a better understanding, because the whole problem -- program of human history is then in the fact that already the oldest tribes have monogamy. You also would understand that Islam is the great desertion of this, abandonment of this knowledge because Islam, as you know, has polygamy and that's why Islam has no future and why today, against all the news from these scoundrels in Ibn Saud's Arabia, the -- Islam is in the birth throes of a great reformation. It cannot last, because it has not this peace between man and woman. That's the real warfare, as I told you before, and that's -- don't be frightened when these people speak of pan-Arabic movements. That doesn't exist. There exist, unfortunately, American dollars -- which we feed these tyrants and make for war there. But that's America's policy and not -- not the policy of the Arabian raiders.

And on the other hand, in -- all over North Africa, all over India, Pakistan, Arabia, Iraq, Iran, the problem is: where do the women of these people stand? And that's real politics. And nobody -- ever -- in our newspapers ever mentions this, you see -- Mr. Nasser knows this very well indeed. His predecessor, King

Furt- -- you see, King -- what was his name? wie? Farouk, yes -- was divorced by his wife. And that was the great revolution of Egypt, not Mr. Nasser. She sent the letter of divorce to the King of Egypt. And she made -- she had been educated in Paris and she made use of her new rights as a woman.

And these are -- these are the interesting facts that go on in this world today, not what you read in the papers. Because all issues are religious, and the relation between man and wife is -- men and women is of course the central issue of our faith.

It is this very reason that magazines and newspapers are no food for you today, because as soon as these news are just secular, they can never touch on the important, you see. Because the marriage is a religious question, you see. Your religion is in your marriage. And therefore the newspapers don't touch it. But that's why -- they have become so uninteresting. I've tried to read -- The Los Angeles Times, but I found it unpalatable. The newspapers have let us down. They no longer speak of important things.

Now, in order to draw together these five lectures, I have put this strange word, "individuus," here on the blackboard. Nobody knows what it means. And I have added "can" and "may." I have talked here, in the understanding of what we do when we speak to each other or when we fall silent, of something that goes against the grain of the 19th century. That's the word "individual." Everybody has boasted that every man is a parcel, is a country to himself, is his own world, and his own will governs in this -- inside this individual. That is one meaning of the Latin word, "individuus," which means "it's the smallest unit -- that which is indivisible," you see. "Individuus" is the adjective which means "that which cannot be divided." This is one -- only one aspect, it is the use of the word, used in Greece, in antiquity. The "atomos," you see, that -- the atom is -- the -- Latin version of "atom" is "individual," and I have not to point out to you that this has been refuted. We do divide the atom. It can be divided, and the assumption therefore that you and I cannot be divided is probably also wrong. We can go schizophrenic, and we do. And we break down under the burden of this lie that you and I are individuals. It's the one thing we are not. We are very divisible. And just as the nuclear physicist tells you that the atom is divisible, you and I are also divisible and we are therefore found in -- in larger proportions than ever in lunatic asylums.

This is quite serious. The blunder of the 19th century is to declare that man is not divisible. Man is divisible. He can break apart. And he does it more and more, and if you con- -- go on with your -- ridiculous philosophy that man is not divisible, he will prove it to you. The majority of people will go insane.

There is quite another use of the word "individuus." And there you see that the Church or the religious way of mankind has always run -- to run parallel with the secular one. For the secular thinker, for the zoologist, the philosopher, the biologist, it was understood that here, everybody had a skin to himself, therefore he couldn't be divided without destroying him, and also man was his own highest unit. Here, I can see: you sit here, I sit here, what do we have in common? We are divided.

The Church has always said that's just nonsense. You only live because I am here and you are here. We are together. And this therefore, they coined therefore this phrase, "individuus" with the new meaning, "that which may not be divided." And they climax it with the -- to you, unknown, but rather sacred term -- "individua trinitas." The trinity between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cannot be subdivided. It is indivisible. Also peace is indivisible. You may remember that there has been a slogan in the last 50 years, and between the two world wars, that all peace was indivisible, that it wouldn't do that two countries had peace. All had to, you see. Peace could not be divided. The divine presence cannot be divided. And all the peace treaties, down to the peace treaty of 1815, including the Peace of Versailles between America and England, began with the great word, "In the name of the indivisible Trinity."

What's the practical importance of this phrase? It meant that when -- the 13 colonies and England made peace, that it made no -- difference -- it should make no difference that George III hated the independence of America, that the divine spirit now hovered over both countries, despite the lack of any understanding between the two earthly powers. George III, as you know, said at one time -- had to pronounce the independence of the United States. I've learned this from Mr. Page Smith, again.

And man can only make peace if your and my conviction is not the last and highest court of justice. The individual character of the Trinity means that we have, as Americans, at this moment to grant Mr. Khrushchev life. And -- and although the bishops of -- this country have gone to -- Mr. Truman in 1948 or '47, and told him that they had nothing against the preventive throwing-down of the atomic bomb on Moscow -- that's not a religious act to -- to say so -- you have to tolerate your enemy. The essence of Christianity is that, believe it or not, we like it or not, God has a greater patience and a greater understanding than we have and the -- since the Trinity is indivisible, God is at home in Russia as much as He is here, because the official denial of the divinity is not what God cares for. You just have to read the New Testament on this. Those who will say, "Lord, Lord," are not, you see, sure of the kingdom of Heaven.

The greatness of the peace that we have to follow, that we have to maintain, that we have to aspire at, is beyond our ideology, beyond our philosophy,

beyond our consciousness. Peace is beyond our reasoning. This is expressed in this expression, "Individua trinitas," and it means that Trinity may not be divided. That this is very important you can see from the fact that Mr. Eichmann went to his death allegedly believing in God. It cost nothing. That's philosophy. The Stoic says, "I believe in God." Nobody knows what he means. He means "nature." I told you yesterday -- the last time, about Spinoza, who was a pantheist. And he said, "Nature and God -- that's just the same." It isn't, you see. The Trinity of our -- living God is quite different. It's a -- trinity which we testify to when we speak. For example, when an American speaks to a Russian, he acknowledges that although there's misunderstanding, there's a craving for understanding, and there is a duty to try to understand, and there is a hope that we may understand, and there is a deep faith that God cannot have created this round earth just for nothing, and just for our private pleasure.

The individua trinitas then is in the 20th century, I think, as important as the doctrine of individualism in the 19th century. It is totally forgotten that the peace treaties were only possible for a thousand years of mankind, because people had to bury the -- the axe, you see, of dissent, and had to come to terms, because they recognized that they weren't alone in the world, that God had created the other beings just as well as us. And as you have to make peace with the redwood in conservation, so we have to make peace with people who speak another language. And it's no reason to kill them, because they do not speak with the nasal twang as in Chicago.

If you see it, it is quite exciting that the secular always takes precedence before -- we discover the religious content. It is not an accident that the word "individua" -- "individuus" -- "individual" has triumphed in the 19th century on purely natural grounds. Because you and I have two different pairs of pants and coats, we were called, you see, separated, and the smallest unit that can be formed. But if you think of your natural atomic physicists, they, of course, only think under the neurotic compulsion to keep up with our faith. And the natural sciences always -- march in the rear guard of political experience. You think the opposite. You think they are the avant-garde. Not at all. They are delegates from our experience of World War I and II. Since we have to form now a unity, you see, they have to -- discover that all these electrons are not just part of one atom, but belong to a much larger universe into which this atom, you see, is lodged. And I assure you, if you want to learn how to behave from the atomic physicist, you will throw the bomb. If you say they are just reflecting on the needs of mankind in their little fields of physics and chemistry, you will understand them better. And you will control them, and you will check them, and you will not admire them so much. I think that's all today the golden calf, this admiration of physics. It's exactly the same what the Egyptians did, and it did the Egyptians no good, and it won't do you any good to believe that physics is the divinity which

you have to worship.

Physics can be subdivided in biophysics and chemical physics. And it's already completely on the way out, as a unity. It has -- forms no unity. The place in the individual trinity is more difficult, but it's much more fruitful and it's much more reliable.

I try to show you that every human being that participates in this great concert of the universe in which the electrons swing, and in which you and I dance, trying to keep the peace of -- to establish the peace and spread it all over this globe, that in this tremendous cosmic dance, speech is the power that enlarges, controls, revises what we are doing. We are told what to do; we say we are doing it; we check, have we done it; then we die and others come and take stock and say they have done it. And I told you that man moves, therefore, from the imperative of when he hears his name called out over him -- be it in the cradle or be it later; marches under orders -- that's your obedience; and while he is -- carrying out his -- his task in -- for the little time he is on this earth, he makes -- tries to encourage himself by this emotional attitude of the subjective mood. And then he looks back and takes stock with whom he had to join. And you remember that I told you that the sequence in grammar is -- where's my chalk? -- I -- the -- the vocative, with which I am called -- the "Poor Me," you may call it. Then the "I." Then the "we." And then the "it."

I have to come back. This was the beginning of our wisdom here. You and I, when we are born, we enter this world as "Poor Me," as "Thee." Then we -- may become "I's." But the right to become "I's" depends on our obedience, that we have listened. I think I have somewhere here even a stupid verse, but it is just as good as any memorial verse in grammar:

The listener, "Poor Me," Has formed all my beginnings. He as speaker, my proud "I," may come into his innings.

It is very important that you should see that man begins as a listener, as somebody to whom the voices of God or his parents speak. And the parents are no good if the child cannot understand that they speak in the name of God and not in their own ridiculous name. There would be less matriarchy and less analysis needed if the parents would make it clear, as obviously Mother Freud did not make it clear to poor Mr. Freudli, that she did not speak in her own name. But she -- that she called on him in -- in somebody-bigger's name. Parents are in God's stead, but only as long as it is clear that they don't speak in their -- from their own women-mood, but that they are representative.

There is a universal priesthood of men, but it is only in existence if it is -- can be made clear that the child knows, "my parents govern me in a higher name." Your whole problem in this country is only that the parents have always acted as I's, as characters, as individuals. Then they have no right to claim any authority over their children. Why should anybody, why -- because he's older or has indulged in marriage, why should he have any right to educate his child? No reason to see this. Take the -- take it away from these parents. They are just individuals.

And I tried to show you that the only thing that must hold together is the indivisibility of human peace. And if the parents are able to let this peace shine into the heart of the child, they have the authority to bring the child into the fold. Under- -- otherwise, they abuse it. All your problems in education vanish from the very moment when the parents make sure that they find means and ways to show the child that it is not they who give the orders, but that they are, just as much as Mr. Kennedy, officers of some higher order.

If you don't do it, the result will be that the -- your children, as they already do, call you by their first -- your first name. And then you have to obey them, which I -- also have seen in American families. This is very simple. We all are either priests of the word, or we are nobodies. Out we go.

"The listener, Poor Me, has formed all my beginnings. He as speaker, my proud I, may come into his innings." It may help you then, to see also that there is a famous book, which is very misleading, by my friend Martin Buber, who wrote this book 40 years ago and couldn't know that it would be so misinterpreted. The book is called, The I and the Thou. And since he put the "I" first, people have not understood there is not -- are not two people, only, but that you begin as a "Thou," and then grow up to be the -- an "I," and then later a "we." It's terribly important that you should see that you yourself have to run through the stages of grammar in every one act. When you are -- integrated into a society, you begin with understanding the command. In this moment, an imperative -- I -- like to always -- to express it, seeks his executor, you see. There is in the air dangling fire, you see. Somebody has to extinguish the fire, so we all shout, "Fire, fire, fire!" Somebody who is obedient to this call, runs out, and brings the water hose, and begins to extinguish the fire. Others -- remain indifferent, and this act does not touch them, and they remain outside history, so to speak, because they do not feel that they should respond. Responses make people. Anybody who hears the vocative, "John," and who follows the vocative is in the state of being born as a person. But he has to take upon himself this humiliating experience, that somebody else creates him into what he has to do. We are not self -- makers of ourself. Again, one of the wonderful lies of the 19th century is that man makes himself. It doesn't exist. Nobody makes himself.

We are made by -- under -- even the man who hears the word "Gold," from California and he rushes out and is slain -- he has not been made by himself, but by this vocative, "Gold." And the -- his answer is, "I shall try to get it." But this is a second situation. This is a response, you see, to somebody -- something that is called out. How can one overlook it? I -- it's hard to believe how these people in the 19th century cheated themselves out of their salvation, and out of their bliss by saying, "We begin {the earth}." Well, any man who came to this country listened to -- you may say, something very seductive, some sounds of the siren, but he came certainly because there was a rumor in the world that you could live in this country. And they obeyed this challenge and they came. And then they respond by their becoming somebody in their own right, and ending up as "I's," and finally as "we's," with some tremendous trust.

We ourselves, then, pass through the various forms of grammar. If you would bear this in mind, you would understand that history, for example, a field which is today very much in -- under debate, is not a science, but is a narrative of what has gone on before. Now to narrate, and to tell a tale has nothing to do with science. And as long as the historians on -- in this university and others believe that they are scientists, history must, of course, disintegrate, as it does today. It ends in biography. That is, that's the last individual unity which cannot be debated, and so the good historians today are biographers.

But history is not biography. Sorry to say, dear Page. And it's the -- it is the tale that's -- has to be told so that the young- -- next generation is -- is -- is allowed to continue the tale. And therefore it has to be told because the future already got started in 1776. And how can any man live in America if he doesn't take to his bosom the history of -- beginning in 1776 or before, or later, and becomes willing to continue it? That's history. History is your introduction into that which already has begun to dictate to your acts because the future began already, long before you were born.

No Christian can doubt this, because -- what do we believe? We believe that Christ is ahead of us. Jesus died certainly a long time ago. That's a very short time for you and me to catch up with Him and to follow suit. And He is va- -- very much ahead of you and me at this moment. He lived already tasks, and duties, and possibilities which you and I still have to discover. So we are much later than Jesus, or there is no Christianity. If you don't believe this, you cannot be a Christian. The consequences are easily understood.

I have here -- copied for you a strange tormented { } of a man who has written a very good book. It's called The Yorkist Age. It came out a few weeks ago and it tells the story of the 15th century. But you only see the sickness of our age -- and that's why I read it, not because you are interested in the 15th century

-- but any one of you reads historical novels today. Any one of you occasionally knows that there are four gospels written who began to write history as it should be written and have no- -- never been excelled. And this man writes -- every word is ill and sick in this preface -- "The object of this book" -- he means, the aim of this book -- "The object of this book is not to analyze, but to recapture a part of the past. I have aimed" -- now comes the right word -- "at recreating the Yorkist age." Now he has to a- -- apologize. Otherwise his career, you see, is destroyed. "Isolating a segment of time from the mesh of history is admittedly to deal in metaphor, not truth." So the poor man destroys, you see, his own, whole -- standing by saying, "What I am doing is not -- is not truth, but metaphor. Because truth, you see, that would be scientific."

So: "Yet I believe that this figure of speech, the Yorkist age, is more than a pale paper existence. I have tried to -- demonstrate that the metata -- Metapher" -- how do you pronounce it? Metaphor -- "is apt and useful." I have to say on this something right away. And "...the historian will come up with partly qualified generalizations. Facts are brute, are recalcitrant matter. Must -- they must be rubbed together in the mind before they will assume the shape of meaning." I feel terribly hurt. "On the other hand, one -- once touched upon, they become artifacts. I have inver- -- -vented no scene, no conversation, no details of action ..." and yet this poor man felt he is writing metaphor, not truth.

This poor historian, you see, who -- who says he will only speak the truth, you see, is in -- in such a self-defense that he has to deny what he is doing and is willing to be called a metaphorical speaker. I mention this because this man is definitely very ill. He is -- fallen prey to the superstitions of the age, of this scientific age. And therefore, it is quite important that I now prove this to you.

He has on another page -- ja: "The values of life," he says, and that's perhaps the best beginning for helping him out, and helping you out of this quagmire -- "the values of life were still emblemized in the 15th century, rather than analyzed." Rather than analyzed. So he said, we today in 1962, of course, we only analyze, you see. That's why we are so boring. And in the 15th century, they still emblematized. Whatever that may mean. Something nice, obviously.

Now, no historian analyzes. The historian tells a story. And then you know how it ha- -- all happened. And you can enter this sequence, you see, and act as they did, your -- the founding fathers. It is utterly ridiculous. Modern scientists, you see, have destroyed human speech because they only speak objectively. And I have tried to tell you -- show you -- that to speak objectively is the last act in a whole process of poetical, imperatival, religious, and historical speech. At the end, you can take it and say, "it," "they." What -- George Washington was only a small man, or he was a fat man, or he was a big man, all the interesting questions of analysis. Or he loved his

mother, or he didn't love his mother. After all, what he really did was that he was the first president of the United States.

So all the things that the analysts then add, you see, are looking behind the scenes, so to speak. But that's not the story itself. If you look behind the scenes on a theater, you know what you see. That doesn't explain Hamlet, that you can go behind the scene and look at the -- at the stagecraft there. But all what modern man wants to do is to get behind the stage; and then he's very astonished that he sees absolutely nothing.

This man is sick, because the -- the beauty of his work -- The Yorkist Age, I've read it -- is that he makes these people speak. He quotes their letters, he quotes their documents, and that's -- first of all, it's the truth, and second -- and now comes perhaps the surprise, which I like to add today and which I would -- would like you to take home, because it's the beginning of -- of discovering the life of speech -- all speech is metaphorical. There is no other speech than metaphor. Whatever we say, we use metaphor. The prose we use is just frozen-out poetry of yesterday. If you analyze what -- when you write a letter to somebody, it's the poetry of the 18th century which you have now -- have now been reduced to prose.

The "eye of God" or the "hand of God" is a much older expression than "your hand" and "my hand." Anatomy, how you describe now your human body, has only been invented as a vocabulary in the 16th century, when anatomy became a science, you see. But long before, have people spoken of "Zeus nodded -- nods approval," you see. That is, all the things in space -- the rose, and the -- the tempest, and the flowers, forget-me-not -- were used to express things absent in time, of the future or in the past. Metaphor is the source -- the first means of speech. How could -- you see, the first people had -- in the Bible, in the Old Testament, you find the eye of God; and in Egypt, you find the eye of Horus. Of course, how else could they express that God also sees, but not with my eye, you see, but with some bigger thing, the divine eye? This is, I -- I mean -- e-y-e.

Ear, hand, eye -- all these were metaphorically used. The visible had to serve the -- hint, you see, at the invisible -- at that what has gone before. How could a man who had to conjure up the founding of the tribe, how -- what else could he do but bind a mask before his face and say, "I am the dead man, once more," you see. And all the words he spoke were metaphorical, because they were meant to make alive something that happened 500 years back. Well, all our theater makes still use of it and -- of this metaphorical way. If you analyze any one page in any -- in any history book of today or law book of today, it is all metaphor. It is -- only it is thinned out. You don't realize how thin now your understanding has become.

I tried to show you that the word "object" and "subject" themselves are metaphors. Of course they are. Therefore they meant in the 18th century the very opposite from what they mean today. An "object" is something -- was originally, you see, the subject, and the subject was the object. Because to object and to subject, you can see that something was thrown against you and that's why I said we today must see that we are prejects into the future and trajects from the past, because that is the...

[tape interruption]

...we want to speak. You have to uphold the Constitution, otherwise the -- John Birch is behind you and you also have to change. And so you are traject, by using the words of the Constitution, but you are the preject by adapting it to the needs of the future.

But this very word, "preject" and -- and "traject," is of course a metaphor. Because anything that our five senses in this room here cannot reach, you see -- by -- by touch, smell, eye, or ear -- we still have to bring into our ken. We have to speak of 2,000 years back and 200 years in the future, have we not? Otherwise our children cannot understand why we are teaching them.

And therefore all our language is metaphorical and the "eye of God" has to be used. It's -- of course, the atheists are very proud that they discover this metaphor. Don't you think Moses knew this just as well as Professor X in the University of California, that he used metaphor? It's his duty to use metaphor. And you now have limited to one poem that the boy at 14 is allowed to write to his sweetheart -- as one poor boy told me at Dartmouth, "I stopped writing poetry at 14." Poor boy.

But I think the man here, Mr. -- what's his name? -- Paul Murray {Kendall} -- do you know him? You should. It's an historical book. You are scientists. Paul Murray {Kendall} has written this book, The Yorkist Age, and as I said, he said that his- -- historian will come up with craftily qualified generalizations. He must not come up with any generalizations.

But there we come to something quite important, which is not understood today by most scientists: that a family, consisting of four or five people, or six or seven, is not a generalization. It's just this one family, the Smith family. Yet this man thinks that when he speaks of more than one man, he generalizes. That's not true. There is a difference between humanity and humankind. Humanity is an abstraction. And I gave you this paper, "Death by Abstraction," to show to you what it -- that it doesn't convey any -- any life. But the humankind -- that are all the real people in their interaction, with nothing abstract about it at all. A family

is not an abstraction; it is not a generalization. But it is an existing group which you can, so to speak, member and arti- -- articulate. And that is what language, concrete language, specific language does: it articulates groups. But this group, which I call the Smith family, is not a generalization. But poor Mr. {Kendall} thinks it is.

The historian has no right to generalize at all. But he has to call a spade a spade. Now there are many spiritual spades. There are powers and beliefs that go through the ages. So he has to speak of the Church, and he has to speak of socialism. That's not a generalization. Of course, all words with -ism are suspect. Try to avoid them. One can live without -isms. But human groups are not -- are not such abstractions. The Quakers are not a generalization. Or the Catholic Church. Just all nonsense. And of course, because Christianity has fought the abstract mind of the philosopher and the scientist through the ages, it had, therefore, preferred even to have a pope in Rome than to have just a philosophy, you see, because that would be a real abstraction and that would be the death of any living creed. It's an -- was an emergency in which the pope received this authority, because it is a -- still better to hear a living person speak than just to have -- to -- define your terms.

I was scolded last time, I understand, because I have not defined my terms. Well, then I would have betrayed you. At the end of these six lectures, you -- we may understand each other, but I have just to begin to speak until we understand each other. Any defining of terms means that the thing that I speak of is not in my heart. It is not in me and I do not represent it, but somewhere lying on the table of an- -- the anatomist and is dissected, and bisected, and resected, and analyzed. You can only define terms about dead things. How can you define the United States of America except by saying, "I love them"? Then they begin to live and then people begin to know what you mean by this. But if you say, "I an- -- define my term. I mean by the United States," ja, what do you mean? It is indefinable. It is much more when you could define. If I could define it, it would be outside of me. It would have ceased to be important to me. You can only define unimportant things. God is not to be defined. That's just His power. That's why we call Him "infinite" and "almighty." And all the people in the 19th century who have tr- -- defined God in their insolence and impertinence have killed Him. And that's why at the end of the 19th century, a philosopher said, "God is dead," successfully executed.

"Define" means "to kill" -- to presume that the -- the thing defined, you see, is under your power. Who can speak of God Almighty in His absence? It's impossible. I can only blush with -- by the idea that you could think that I am speaking of God. Nobody can do this. That's why -- but who understands that this word, "under God" which is in the Constitution and in our -- all our talk,

means something very real, that He is present. Otherwise it's a hollow term, "under God." "Under God" means that although I am speaking at this moment as an American, the individual trinity, you see, is above me and watches that my word hasn't too much significance. Because there must other words be heard, too, and other people have the right to speak, besides me.

It's very strange, all these things have -- you are all schizophrenic because on the one-hand side, you quote all these wonderful insights, and on the other, you forbid yourself ever to believe in them. I have not understood this, this -- this paralysis to break through into a real unity of thinking out of the strange dream that we define our terms. Could you speak English, if you had to -- first had to define your terms? We are groping. -- These are difficult things I try to tell you. If I tried to define my terms, I couldn't say -- reach first base. I'm stammering, sure. But the better the truth, the more you have to stammer. And the more we are superstitious, and say, "I can define all this," the less I would care. The more unimportant is what such a man has to say. You can only define things that -- to which you are indifferent, or as you say, "objective."

But God is in us. He is not above us in the sense of a physical universe. It seems that most people do not dare to think this out, that we are part of all these powers between God and us which I've called "the gods." A scientist speaks in the name of science. A -- a soldier speaks in the name of strategy.

I just read this -- this speech by MacArthur. Funny enough as an advertisement. We all speak in the name -- parents speak in the name of the family dignity, or of God Almighty. But everybody speaks in a higher name, but usually not in the highest. In church, you sing this strange -- these strange four verses -- "Bless him -- praise God from whom all blessings flow. Praise Him, ye pow- -- ye -- creatures here below." And then comes the third verse which is very -- not understood by any one of you. Pardon me for saying this, "Praise Him above ye heavenly host." That sounds like a very untestable, undemonstrable something. How can we speak to the -- the powers that are between God and us? This is a great riddle. It's -- most mysterious verse in the whole liturgy, you see, that we ask the powers between God and us to -- to obey Him.

And yet, that's the whole story of the speaking human being. Our speech makes you and me free to know that I'm only -- have spo- -- only spoken in the name of science. That's one of these powers there above. Other people speak in the name of good government, of patriotism. Other people speak in the name of art. Again, others speak in the name of art critique, whatever that may be, or in the name of -- of phy- -- your -- your own science, your own field of -- or they speak in the name of the future of California.

Innumerable powers are between God and you. If you understand this process of coming to life and dying, which I've tried to show you is the process of "Thee," "I," "we" and "it," then you know that all these powers are transient. There is a time for science, and there is a time for war, and there is a time for sleep. And there is -- all these angels and archangels, dominions, and principalities, as St. Paul called them much more drastically -- all these powers of finance, of the stock exchange, of speculation, of the -- Dow Jones averages -- they are powers and they are gods, in the old language, you see.

If you are an idolater, you will rest your case in the lingo that you have to speak at the stock exchange. And most kno- -- people I know who have to do with the stock exchange think this is an independent something which has its own laws, and all your vocabulary is limited when you talk to another businessman to this ridiculously narrow circle of expressions. Today we cannot afford this. The living God has even to enter the realm of business, and the gods of business. Even the Dow -- Dow Jones averages have to fall to the ground, just as the walls of Jericho. And God is power- -- more powerful than the stock exchange. This seems to me the lesson of the last 10 days. That is, the economy doesn't give a damn for the Dow Jones averages. It goes on, despite all the losses of the speculators at the stock exchange. That's a great experience for me. I know that God is more powerful than the stock exchange. This hasn't brought ho- -- been brought home, so far. And now it is beginning to dawn on people that there are other powers that keep us going, and not just the stock exchange.

This has to be proven. These are the powers that we invoke in this prayer, you see. "Praise Him," you see, the powers above -- because they stand between me -- nobody can live directly under God's eye constantly. He's too far away, He's too powerful. He has created the United States. He has created economies. He has created business. There's no doubt that they are bigger than you and me in -- in isolation. But there comes a moment where any one of these powers has to show that it is responsible to a higher, you see, power. And we weak men in our feebleness, in our idiocy, are sometimes called up to speak in the name of these -- this highest power and to call these -- these middle -- medium powers, so to speak, you see, in between -- to justify their existence. To mend their ways. There would be no politics, otherwise. There would be no history. There would be no marriage. If your -- if your parents knew already all your relations to the human race, a daughter could never marry a man who- -- of whom the parents disapprove. Yet all marriage consists just -- in this very interesting experience.

That -- I feel so deeply that the most vivid, and most dangerous and most risky terms of the liturgy are no longer heard or understood. I haven't found one minister -- pardon me, Father {Russack} -- with whom I've tried to debate, you see, this "Praise Him a- -- above ye heavenly hosts," who had ever given it a

thought. There is something about Gabriel, and Raphael, Michael -- you don't know very much about them, and they think these are angels. Well, let them alone. We can't let them alone. These powers that are between the living God and us wait to be called to attention in the -- in our -- in our words, which we speak over them. They have limits. And we have to discover their limitations. And if we don't, we perish under the shadow of these powers, just as the Egyptians perished under the dominion of the very benevolent tyranny of the golden calf. As you well know, the Egyptian religion went on till Emperor Constantine's successor closed the temple in Alexandria, of the big bull, of the golden calf.

I shall never forget, I once came to the Rhine -- to the city of Trier on the Mosel River in Germany. It must have been 20 years ago, I'm not sure now. Longer -- longer, in the '20s. It was -- is a beautiful river and was a great experience to me. And I came to an excavation where an old Roman temple was excavated. And the excavator, an archaeologist -- of course a professor -- said to me, "Yes, we have just found that this is the temple of the Egyptian goddess Isis. And here is the -- Serapis, the golden -- the bull," and I -- was quite exciting to find in Germany such an Egyptian temple, out of the 4th century of our era.

And then there was a farmer standing by and he said, "Oh, we knew it all the time that the golden calf here had a temple." He had only, you see, the tradition of the Church and of the Bible. And he didn't need an archaeologist, you see. He just -- and he gave it the right name. He knew that this was the -- what Moses had called the "golden calf," you see. The archaeologist -- had never dawned on him that this was the temple of the golden calf. He called it the temple of Isis and Serapis. -- You see, it's a -- that's the method of modern science to make sure that nobody understands.

It is -- this is the way. This archaeologist had never thought that perhaps the Christian people of the Mosel River, who once had become -- worshiped this -- this goddess, you see, and this bull, had then become Christians and kept the memory of it. And yet, in Trier, for ex- -- to show you how -- how vivid these traditions there can be, at the church next door to these excavation, there was standing at the entrance door a Venus naked. And when the Christians entered the service, they took a whip and lashed out at her to show that they had given up the worship of Venus, you see, and now entered into the true faith inside the nave of the cathedral. This I -- I have seen with my own eyes, still standing there, this poor wretched sculpture.

But it is more important that such a tradition should be called {alive} than that we should have archaeology. It takes a hundred years before you can persuade the archaeologists to understand that this was ever of vital importance to the people, you see, and is not just for Guggenheim.

That's the -- the charm here, I think, with the -- with our Indian dance -- I have friends here, their dances are still real. I mean, their -- they still acknowledge powers of death and diseases, you see. And they are powers. As I learn in June and with dismay in California -- I didn't know you could complain here about the weather.

Since we are transformed into these various stages, with every act that is important in our lives and has to be carried out, that we move from a "Poor Me" into a "Proud I" and into a communal "we" and then are dismissed as "they did it," or "they have passed away," or "they are now gone," you may begin to see that with speech, we integrate the globe, the earth. We join with other men when we say, "we." We take our tasks towards the earth when we conserve, when we dig, when we harvest, and we try to distinguish how much we owe to our fellow man and how much we owe to the furtherance of the elements around us -- be it oil, coal, woodland, soil, what have you. This constant partition between our interest in things and our interest in our fellow man is really the religious task that we have to solve. How much do we give to the love and affection of the -- you see, of our mem- -- the members of society? How much do we have to honor the gifts outside our human society?

And now at the end, I would like to prove to you that you all know this long ago despite your wrong -- teaching in lang- -- the languages. Although you had to learn "La rose est une fleur," or "The water is cold," or "Das Wasser ist kalt," you also know better that one sentence is not language, but the relation of past and future times means to speak, to participate in the life of the race. You all know this, because there is one thing of which the grammarian doesn't know anything so far, and that's the basis of the future grammar, I think. It will begin where the platitudinous, the fortuitous grammarian, and grammar school never tried -- dared to begin. The one thing that is lacking when you play with things, and when they are not seriously meant, you see, is that you can start them and end them arbitrarily. What distinguishes a war from sport. You say, "I play from two to four." With a war, you cannot do this, you see. It breaks out and it ends. And you are the slave of this time -- length of time, and you have no power over its duration. So you say, "for the duration," because you cannot determine the duration.

Most people have forgotten in this country that there is this definite difference between seriousness and play. And you always mistake talk for speech: for example -- for this reason -- or play for seriousness. People would like to play politics; they would like to play marriage; they play with everything. And they are very unhappy. Anybody who doesn't know the distinction between play and seriousness of course is the -- is the -- how you would say it -- preisgegeben ist -- given, you see, to -- to accident. Play is something that you c- -- that -- isn't

worth your -- your effort, really. And so it just runs away from you. I know -- you know how -- how many students perish because they cannot distinguish between play and seriousness. They think that examinations are serious. It would be serious, you see, if they learned something. But examinations are just play. Nobody should think that an examination is -- is serious. It's an exercise. Exercises are not serious.

I mean to this very seriously, because this country now seems to fall for the idea that the examinations are the goal of life. And parents should know that they are just nothing.

Since this frontier between seriousness and -- and play is really gone, my topic today was formulated in this rather insolent fashion that speech is a lifeand-death struggle, and I try -- only try to say it is very serious.

How can I prove this? There's one thing that the dying, and the sick, and the tortured people know -- the healthy have forgotten it. In a -- in a -- I read a few weeks ago in a paper from British Columbia -- a newspaper from Vancouver { } -- the following report: The Salvation Army makes known that it has a suicide service to try to persuade people not to commit suicide. And they have a telephone going day and night -- this also exists in other communities -- and that they have found out that from the tone of the voice of the man or the woman who telephones, they can say whether it is serious or whether it is not serious. The tone of a human voice is such that it defies all the grammar books and the dictionaries. This tone testifies to the relation of this articulated speech to your own life. And you know very well when you turn on the radio, you know whether a minister begins to speak, or an advertiser begins to speak, or a politician begins to speak -- you can judge by the tone of their voices, you see. If you have to think of the grave, then it is a sermon. And they have this -- this grave voice, haven't they? Or they -- or they imitate somebody else, because they are afraid you shouldn't find out too early, you see, only { }.

What is this tone, the tone of the voice, the tonality? Some Italians in the Academy of Science in Rome, have published very interesting investigations about the tone of the voice. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, nobody has done this -- they have too long been anti-musical, probably. Now they should. They should discover. The modern linguists, the modern grammarian has paid no attention to the tone. And yet you all know that if you observe tonality, you well know that an imperative is quite of a different urgency, you see, than something lyrical, or something epical, something just narrative, or something analytical. The worst thing I object -- to, you see, I -- is -- the reproach I have against the scientist is the tonelessness of his statements, you see. We all -- I go to sleep. And others, of course, worship this and say, "This is objective." But what have I to do

with objectivity? It leaves me out of the game. I want to be in it and not outside of it. This objective -- these words that drop here from somewhere, I don't know -- I think they are ridiculous, utterly ridiculous. And whenever a man tries to speak objectively, his eloquence is certainly gone. Why people should listen -- him -- probably because he has a Nobel Prize -- Nobel Prize. But he gets the Nobel Prize for killing his soul first. Then he gets the Nobel Prize. Let him have the Nobel Prize. But he's not interesting to me. Poor Mr. Kennedy has to dine with him.

They are not interesting. A mathematician is just usually the funniest creature on earth. He's not a human being, he's just a mathematician. I -- have some friends who are really great mathematicians. They are very nice, but they smash every automobile and you have to watch over them like little children. They haven't grown up.

Now, the tone is "me." And you know whether I am in danger or whether I am in love, or whether I am indifferent. The tone says it all. You don't have to understand what I say, that comes second. And it is this which I would like to recommend you for reflection. The logicians, the philosophers, the scientists, but even now also the religionists, prefer thought to speech. And they say, "We use speech as instruments, as a tool to express our deep and profound thoughts." The man who gives in to the tone knows that to speak is a physical process in life, that is just like breathing. I've written a book therefore with the title, The Breath of the Spirit. And I mean every bit of it. I mean to say that to be inspired is nothing but breathing to the second power. To such a power that others have to breathe with me.

This is what we desire when we speak. And you just watch a bird or watch anybody -- any animal proposing in his oestrus to his mate, they try to get the other in -- into co-breathing, into sharing this inspiration. The spirit tries to conspire. The conspiracy is the attempt to -- to breathe together. And it is the greatness of the New Testament that they gave up the idea of wisdom -- of the Old Testament of the Greeks -- and replaced {sophia} by pneuma, by the word that just means breathing. It's great modesty, and great reality, and great truthfulness in this, you see. Pneuma is a neuter and was for the Greek philosopher something utterly, you see, undistinguished. It was low. It's just physical breathing, but the Christians of course had to emphasize that man is embedded in this really -- real, one creation. There is no beyond. Christianity has never believed in -- in what the -- what the children now are made to believe, and beyond outside this. God has created one Heaven and one earth, and not a second heaven and a third earth. And we are His children when we extend our power to breathe to our brethren and sisters. And then we are filled with the spirit and we can make peace in His name.

The physical character of the tone I would like to emphasize, because it's the one element which the pagan, Alexandrinian philologists so far have not been able to touch and to destroy. And in this breath, you have the unity of the Christian tradition of the pneuma, of the spirit, you see, and the fact that God is the word, and became flesh so that we may understand what we do when we speak. We kill or we make -- alive. As I -- tried to tell you; if you say, "I had a father," it is very different from your saying, "I have a father."

And this poor man gives a wonderful example of his right, of his power to kill and to make -- alive -- I read this -- this damnable sentence -- now where is it? Here, listen to these terrible words: "Facts are brute, recalcitrant matter. They must be rubbed together in the mind before they will assume the shape of meaning," when this poor man is just asked to tell us a story. No, -- I didn't mean this. I meant -- other sentence -- { } I put this? You remember he said that he -- he -- oh, "The values of life in the 15th century were still emblemized, rather than analyzed." In this word "still," he drives me to despair, because it means that the people in the 15th century were alive, and that we are dead. You see, even if it is true -- that in -- the values of life in the 15th century were still emblemized, whatever that may mean, rather than analyzed -- it means that all, everything we do today is just analysis. Then we are dead. I don't see that there is any increase in analysis. These people had the wrong philosophies then, just as much as we have today, and they also ran to their witchcraft doctors, as we go to the analyst, and it's exactly the same. The -- the sorcerer of pharaoh, they ca- -- they are always with us.

And -- but I, for once, think that all life at all times has to be emblemized, what -- as I said -- as this man calls it, and not to be analyzed. It -- I think it is incredible that a man offers us a book in which he tells stories -- tries to tell a story -- tells it quite well -- and takes this for granted that he is an -- an exception, and uses metaphor, and not -- doesn't tell the truth and, so to speak, apologizes for his being admitted to the bar of public opinion with doing something that is utterly obsolete. Accepting the -- this strange German today, that if you do not analyze, you don't -- deserve a hearing.

[tape interruption]

Now is it true that you propose today to your lady by analyzing her charms? I thought you praise them. Or you write a poem about it. But do you have to analyze your sweetheart? Is it really ev- -- inevitable?

If I have succeeded in making you pause and see what you are doing when you speak and when you listen, which is one and the same -- it's one act -- you will understand in what a sick state we are. The best books on language

which I've consulted are the books by {Sorceur} and {Bermeille}, who are a Frenchman and a Swiss, they are by Bernard Shaw and Wilson, on language in the English language. And they have indices. Even the French book has an index. You know most French books have no indices, and this book has. The French are too logical, you see. They don't care for indices, for this reason. They say it's illogical to have an alphabetical index. And -- but this has. The -- the pupils of Mr. {Meille} have added to his beautiful book on language an index. Now you look up this index and the word "listener" doesn't exist. They speak of a language, you see, that comes from the brain and enters the paper in the form of a book. That's Mr. {Meille's} language. But of course language is a bridge between people. And to hear, and to hearken, and to obey, you see, is the meaning of speaking. If there is no obedience -- there is no listening -- I couldn't speak here if you weren't kind enough to listen to me, and if this bond between us wasn't more real at this moment, than that I am I and you are you. You must forget this.

You can see this very clearly if you not -- do not -- if you stare at the speaker, you can't listen to him. You must forget that there is this dividing line between your skin and mine. You cannot listen as individuals. Anybody who speaks well or listens well must for this moment, although he sees the other person, only concentrate on his face. We speak face to face because my face and your listening face are just widen- -- widening circles around mouth and ear. The face of a person is something quite different from the face of an animal, or from a -- the -- the surface of a picture. It speaks and it listens. And this -- it's very unfortunate -- in German we have the two words, Antlitz und Gesicht. And the Antlitz of our lov- -- beloved is something quite different from her face. It is that which we lift up towards each other. That's called Antlitz in German. And the Gesicht is just wha- -- that what you can define in physiology, in -- or in anatomy. It is -- I don't know that there is in English such a distinction possible, but yet you all know that it exists in reality. While I'm talking to you, you see, we are in one. And I can explain what no scholar in philology can explain, why the Psalms are written as responsories, because the speaker and the listener grow so much together that out of my word, your word responds. This is speaking face to face, you see, that it elicits this. And many people today talk about dialogue. But they have no idea what it is, because they think in a dialogue you say what you think. No. You don't say what you think, but y- -- what you are made to say in answer to what your beloved or your hated says on the -- in the first place. This is the -- magnetism that is created by our facing each other.

Therefore, in full speech, more is involved than just the sound of my voice and the ear of your body, of your -- . We are transformed into conductors of this speech. And a good speaker, of course, trembles in his whole body when he speaks, and the listener can be made to tremble. You only have these sensations,

it seems now, when you go to a good play. But of course it should be this way when a father talks to his son, or to his daughter, preferably.

That is, we can be transformed into receptacles or into cables of speech much more than you think when you consider speech as just the sound, you see, that comes out of your mouth, and forget that you yourself, in order to listen well, have to become ready to be nothing but an { } -- be it of speech or be it of listening. And this -- this is so -- that's my end- -- ending remark -- I can prove to you by something that most people do not understand. The difference between the shout, and the cry, and the meowing of a -- of animals, and your speech and mine is something that also goes unheeded and unnoticed, and yet it is the great miracle. When a bird sings and persuades his "she" to join him, the dove closes his eyes and thereby gives us to understand that he is without consciousness, that he is just in -- in a trance. If you and I say something in seriousness and earnest, I hear myself what I have said and I am bound by it.

The human being who speaks has to stand under his own word -- it returns to him -- and binds him to the future. That's why every human being is not the one who has been, but the one who has been, plus the thing he says at this moment. Because this, what I am telling you, is an obligation which -- burdens me, which takes me into the future. We speak to get rid of our old self, whatever that may be. By "yes" and "no," by "thank you," or "please," every one of you, and I too, here, in speaking to you -- that's why I have used no manuscript, no rhetoric, that you might perhaps believe me that I'm speaking. Most people only read lectures. That's not speaking. They have thought it out yesterday. I have had to be -- it's a rather risky business, I know -- I had to try to speak to you as it comes, so that you might understand the re- -- the last and highest miracle of human speech, that it binds the speaker. People, you see, the advertiser is not bound. And you must draw this line between lying and truth. Anybody who speaks sincerely and truthfully, allows the other fellow to quote him. And he who doesn't, says, "Don't quote me." And of course, that's the usual no- -- connotation, I understand. Most people, when they speak from -- openly and frankly always will add, "But don't quote me on that." Now, I'm not interested in people who add this remark, you will understand. I -- in history, only those people count who say, "You can quote me."

In this very moment, my word tells against me. Full speech then is nothing you can sell and nothing you can pay for. It is that word which you are willing to be seen made a part of your own existence. Only those words count. Only those are matters of life and death. And when a Quaker came with his hat on into the Puritan Church in Massachusetts, he knew that he had his hands -- life in his hands, you see. He could be quoted on that. And -- how many people are willing to be quoted, as you know? It's a -- small minority that make history. The

others don't count.