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

Ladies and gentlemen, before going into the subject matter, I would like to say how kind you have been to me by giving -- sending me flowers to the hospital. I was put up there in a hallway without my own walls, so the flowers really made it into a palace. It was very wonderful. Thank you very much.

Then I have another more -- difficult and disagreeable task. Some of you have, from their exalted -- altitude of their wisdom, poked fun at my -- at my topic. I had asked you to write on the Second Isaiah. It is of course simpler not to write on Second Isaiah, but to vituperate that I asked such a question. However, if this gentleman, who doesn't even know how to spell my own name, would have tried to understand Second Isaiah, I think he would have made some progress in his immaturity. I think it's a very scandalous paper which I have received. And it's of course a common idiocy of -- of modern students. They don't even know under what conditions a man is allowed to say whether he believes in God or not. You think that is your liberty. This is not a thing of ordering coffee, or ordering tea, or ordering bread and butter.

But to say -- here, he writes, "I am in your universal history class. {I} would now like"--instead of working--"to make a comment. You put forth the idea that we should be intolerant on -- of other institutional religions. God is not known," he says. "He is not understood. He's used." Wonderful. Have you used God? "Does God exist?" It's like a polish, I suppose. "Does God exist? Not God, but life. More than life, a larger, more satisfying life is, in the last analysis, the end of religion."

Now the impertinence, to write on two lines what he thinks religion is, you must realize. Why do you study? Why do you go to a sch- -- higher school of learning, if you do not have first the respect for saying that's a very difficult question which probably cannot be answered, except by my whole life, the whole devotion of all my acts in life, my marriage, the way I educate my children, the way I go to war, the way I sacrifice my money for the poor. This would be a way of implementing religion. The word -- term, the mere vocabu- -- the word "religion," this man has not the faintest idea. So I have written down, "Read more good poetry. Your text is simply nonsense." And I -- of course, that's not the only text of this kind.

May I leave this with you? For the rest of your lives, gentlemen, I will not see you again. I will be -- have passed away. And it isn't important. But it is very important that you should never interfere with a respectable debate on the existence of God, and on His character. And the first condition for this is, that you

must know of God: we only speak in earnest when we are forced, compelled to name Him. This is not -- something you can do like you spiel- -- play cards. This is not something as you write a letter to the editor. This is a very serious business, very disagreeable. When you are in love, desperately in love, and you suddenly have to admit that this love is stronger than any of your reasons not to go for this girl, then you begin to fathom for the first time what a god is. It's an overwhelming power. It's nothing to discuss. It's incredible that you could be 20 years, and -- and come to such a wonderful place as this, here, and haven't even learned the A, B, C, which every 14-year-old boy was supposed to know 100 years ago: that God is that power which compels you to kneel down, and fall -- prostrate. That's the only power that -- deserves the term, "the divinity." Do you think that's a concept? It's an idea? Or all such nonsense?

I really -- felt that my whole course had come to naught when I read this pa- -- paper. This is not -- this is not cowbells, the discussion of the divine. I know that you are all atheists. But then say so. And say, "I have no reason to believe in God, because He hasn't made me kneel down." That's all right. It's very poor, your -- have a very poor soul then, because there is no such man who has not in some emergency felt that he must pray. All this is not a question of debate, all this is not a question of philosophy, not a question of psychology, not a question of analysis, not a question of economics. Don't believe it! It's a power that rules your life! And -- woe to you if you have no such powers who rule -- which rule your life. If you haven't, begin to weep. You are then hopelessly left by all good spirits.

Now I had to say that much. Let's forget about it. This boy is just an idiot. And you must learn to despise such utterances as utter nonsense. They were valueless. Of course, if there is no power in your life, why do you have to talk about it? Nobody has to discuss religion. It's not a painting, it's not a concept, it's not an article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It's nothing of the kind. It is your weakness. And that weakness can either come from God or from the Devil. Usually with you it comes from the Devil.

But nobody should write such utter nonsense -- at the age of 20. He -- "I think that religion," he has written, "should be a function of man's own selfinterest." I think more stupidity has never been -- rained down on the University of California. But this -- you can get away with this today. People are so vain and so stupid, that I think one-half of you wouldn't think anything if I read this sentence to you, without my exclamation mark. You would think that's a normal attempt to define God. Now God cannot be defined. God is an explosion which is stronger than you. It's very disagreeable to believe in God. It changes everything. All your notions, all your concepts, all your philosophies, all your reasons, they all go, when there's one power in your life where you just have to go to the

girl. You shouldn't, but you do. And then you will begin to know that there are powers in your life that are much stronger than you yourself, and then you begin to fathom what is meant by the term "God," and not before.

So please take this down as a note in my book, otherwise I can't go to Heaven, and can't die quietly, you see, that God is not a concept. It is only -- you have only the -- the -- the compulsion to speak of God, when you have experienced Him as an immense power. You would like to steal, but you can't. You would like to elope with a girl, but you can't. You would like to desert the army, but you can't. Then that's the beginning of -- of some experience.

Now I have a -- a more agreeable problem. I have written a book -- or many books. But this is here now available in a Torch -- in the Torch edition. And I have -- we have ordered 20 volumes. And I'm quite willing to part with them, after they must be read -- even if they don't -- you don't pay for them. So I'm willing to give them away. But I must find a method of distributing these -- 20, either to the most undeserving, or to the most deserving.

So will you kindly think up a method of getting rid of them? I can throw them out here, but I don't think that's fair. And I just have no method. I don't have 150 copies. There are 20. So will somebody at the half -- I will make a break after -- in half an hour. And somebody perhaps come forward with a proposition, how to get rid of them. I don't want to carry them home. There they are.

Well, I -- here is my doctor. She gets a copy.

We have two more meetings. And both meetings are appropriately, I think, devoted to one millennium of the Christian era. We have coped with the first thousand years, and we have labeled them: the thousand years of All Saints. And I have tried to tell you that beginning with Christ Himself, and the 12 Apostles, and the Evangelists, the saints filled the Christian calendar until in 185- -- 854, so many had entered the roster that the Church declared that they needed a general day, All Saints, at which day all the martyrs, and confessors, and -- and virgins, and otherwise saints could be remembered, even if they had not a day of their own. And to this day, the -- the Church in the -- East--as much as in the West; in Russia, as much as in Greece or Constantinople--as in San Francisco, celebrates November 1st, and the eve of it, Halloween. And you celebrate it, too. You only celebrate the eve, and not the saint day itself. And so your pumpkin Christianity is still discoverable in rudiments in your Halloween celebration.

Now these saints have unified the world. And on this I would like to say one more word, because it is -- I have found your complete ignorance about the separation of East and West within the Christian Church, and how it came

about. When in 18- -- 854, the day of All Saints was established, the Church in the East -- in the eastern half of the Mediterranean, and in the western half of the Mediterranean, were undivided, they were not separated. There was no schism. The Greek word for the "split" is "schism." "Skhizein" means to split. A hair-splitter would be a "{skhizon}." And therefore, if you hear today of Christianity, you rarely hear anything abou- -- with regard to the Greeks. But at least in San Francisco, we have a Greek Church, a Greek Orthodox Church still -- in ac- -- in action. And the -- patriarch of the American Orthodox Church is not in obedience of the papacy in Rome. This much you may know. It is quite interesting to know how this came about. It came about on the very day of All Saints, in 18- -- 854 -- 864--I'm not sure now. Does anybody? It's either 864 or 854.

The -- the Carolingian emperors, Charlemagne -- especially himself and his grandson, were very anxious to establish their dignity as emperors of the West. And therefore, they looked for any possibility of hitting hard, slapping the face of the eastern emperor. The pope in Rome had so far been always in obedience, or in harmony with the eastern emperor. It was a novelty that there should be an emperor in the West again, of Frankish descent, non-Roman, non-Byzantine, non-Greek descent. And that has brought on something that plagues us to this day, the so-called "schism," in the following way. And I think if you listen to me for this rather complicated little story, you will see how intricate human history really takes its -- its course.

The emperor of the West, Charlemagne in -- in Aix-la-Chapelle, tried to find fault with the Byzantine emperor, and therefore, he had to prove that this was not an orthodox man. If you said -- could prove at that time that somebody was not orthodox, he couldn't be emperor. So he tried to make his bishops excommunicate the bishop of -- the -- the emperor of the East. And so they debated the problem, whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son to us people, or from the Father and Son. And as you may know, in the western world to this day, with Protestants as well as Catholics, the dogma runs that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Now the -- the facts are very simple that the theologians have -- had discussed this for 300 years without coming to any decision. They said you can say, "It -- proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son. The important thing is, you see, that Christ is in history. That is, not -- He is not an idea," as my -- our friend believed, whom I have quoted today that a -- that God was just a -- a word, but He proceeds; that is, He shows His power to grip us and to lead us to action.

And this is not a minor matter, of course, whether we say that the Spirit enters history not by abstract philosophizing, but by getting people to take arms,

and to march, and to marry, and to migrate, and to -- and to come to the United States, proceeds, meaning action, power to be involved, to be compelled to do things. This is the only interesting thing, after all. You cannot wonder that the Holy Spirit, who is a form of God Himself, mu- -- can only prove Himself by real appearance, by real influencing people.

So the discussion was a very good scholastic discussion in -- in Aix-laChapelle, and in Paris, and several other places--even Canterbury, where they usually do not have any mind whatsoever, but --. You see, we have the English for non-thinking. And this is what happened: Charlemagne was an impatient gentleman. And he -- he compelled the bishops of the Frankish empire--which embraced, comprehended Spain, and France, and Germany, and -- and England, too, and Denmark, and Italy; so quite a big piece of the cake--he forced them to put this officially in the Creed, so that every Sunday, it came from the pulpit, you see: "I believe in the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son."

The pope hadn't made up his mind to put this into the Creed at that time. He had no objection to the sentence, but he said, "You cannot force the easterners to do this, too, before we have talked to them, before there has been a synod." Now mostly there was war and there were no synods. And therefore, the East had not received this new -- newest message of the death of God, ta- -- theologians. And with just -- you see, the theologians have always had such funny ideas, as they have it today. Mr. Harvey Cox, and the fathers of the Church in the 9th century had the same kind of -- of problems: how to keep God alive. And they hoped, of course, they said, "Who proceeds from the Father and the Son," that this would impress people with his magni- -- majesty.

For 50 years did the papacy in Rome and the Frankish bishops quarrel: should it be put in the Creed, or should it not? Finally the pope was very angry and had -- had plates cut out -- from marble and ore--I don't know what mineral it was, probably copper plates--in which he omitted the "from the Son." "Filioque" is the Latin word for this: and the Son, you see, who proceeds from the Son. And protested that his ortho- -- old Creed did not contain this. In the meantime, in Aix-la-Chapelle, and wherever the victorious generals of the Franks marched in, they { } drummed it into his ears, "which -- who proceeds from the Father and the Son."

So there was a divergence in the style of the liturgy. And at that time--and that's why I think the whole story deserves to be told--the great decisions of mankind have been made in and by the liturgy. There was stated what was to be true. Today you have statistics instead. I don't think -- know if it is any better. Anybody, any time has generalities; any time has general rules. Now we govern

-- if you look at the -- at the United Nations, they try to prove everything by statistics. Of course, not one word is true. Statistics never are true, you see. Statistics are true for the one who made them. And nobody else can understand them. And this is similar, of course, with "filioque."

And the result was that by 854, the popes weakened. They -- although in the front of the Vatican in Rome, there was this copper plate, with -- without the "filioque," they allowed the -- the new form of the Frankish clergy to be said. And 200 years later, the Byzantines said, "You have -- you have changed the Creed. We are no longer in -- in -- obedience with Rome, in harmony with Rome. Without asking us--without love, that is, without brotherly love--you have proceeded to put -- insert in the Creed these two words, 'filio que.' We had a right to be asked. We never agreed." Now, and imagine, from this day on, 1054, the whole eastern world has lived in schism with the West. Small causes and great effects.

The fact that the -- that the secular branch, the secular arm of government, the empire, dared to change the liturgy--as Charlemagne had positively done--has brought about the fact that to this day the patriarch in San Francisco cannot go to the same service as a Catholic bishop. And that's the only reason. There is no distinction otherwise. The strange thing is--that's why it is worth your noting, you see: that in history, as in families, the lovelessness, the lack of charity between the pope and the patriarch, is more important and has more -- more damage than anything intellectual.

There is not debate -- there was never a debate, a real discussion of the merit of this formula. The patriarch in the East to this day says, "We have not been asked, therefore you have broken the faith."

The western said, "No, don't be angry. The -- Charlemagne is a powerful gentleman. He had more generals than you. And I better -- gave in. He marched into Rome. And it isn't so important. After all, what difference does it make? Two words: 'filio que.' Why don't you accept them and -- and overlook this?"

The Byzantines to this day stand pat and say, "We o- -- don't overlook that you have broken the tie of charity. It doesn't matter whether this is true or not. The way it has been put into the western Creed is intolerable."

Now if you would note this down for your private life, you'll -- it may save you a divorce. That in life, the lack of charity is much more disastrous and important than the lack of intelligence. It is not important that everybody should understand everybod- -- -thing else. But it is very important that he should be required to agree.

And there -- that's why the story of the Schism, in this little niche of the church history, in -- in the 9th century, is of much greater value for your political education than all the editors of McCabe, and deCabe, and how all these gentlemen call themselves who flood you with editors -- editorials. This is the true story. And on this, the fu- -- future of mankind depends. And I wonder what will happen, when it will be put away, of course. There are now people in -- in the Church who even understand this. But they are so touchy.

I have a Roman Catholic friend--he's sitting here in this hall--who has suffered, because his teacher could not forgive me that I had pointed this out, that this was so. He was a good orthodox Roman Catholic. A Roman Catholic cannot do any wrong in regard to ecclesiastical affairs. Therefore, his -- his boss did not allow him to think so.

So it's a very practical question. It is not valueless. You think this -- for the last hundred years, people have been inclined to call this "quibbling," and to say that theological, dogmatic discussions are fruitless. I have never found it so. -- The more you look into the discussions of the fathers of the Church, or Luther, or whom- -- or -- or Wesley, the more you find that they were really concerned with important questions. The only unimportant question is the question of taxation, which you take to be very serious. And it is very strange. It is not possible to -- it seems, to draw attention to the central importance of these ultimate statements of our existence on this earth. They are very important.

So I have -- I am very old-fashioned, and -- today, most books begin with statements that "Of course, the period of religious wars is over, and religious quibbles, and now we only debate the degree of vitamins." I don't believe that this -- you can live in peace if you do not agree on the important questions of life. We are only human beings if we are held together by -- unified conviction. And you are quite erroneous. The margin of error which is tolerable for having 2 billion people live at peace on this globe, this margin of error is very narrow. And if you try to begin -- all the heresies of the world--polygamy, and slavery, and what have you--and say, "What does it matter? I have just this private opinion, you have this private opinion, it would be nice to have a nice slave," can't -- it can't be done, you see. The word "slave" has to be rejected from the vocabulary. Ian Smith has to be deposed in Rhodesia. And that's not a minor matter.

Why that is so? Because obviously, we were created in the image of God, because that's the only way in which all human beings can agree on anything. As soon as you allow these profound distinctions to go unheeded, and unrespected, you are at war. You -- we had this with Hitler. As soon as a -- Jew is not a human being, out he goes. He is burned at stake; he is gassed. That's very serious.

Gentlemen, you live in a period--the next 50 years will show it, in which there is no mercy between human beings. That has been introduced into the world. There was no mercy between Jews and Germans in Germany. Consequence: there is ultimate war. Annihilation, and nothing else. Of course, you must make -- be sure that these swines, that they will let you live before you can go into this country, and settle there, and buy property, and write a book, and marry -- allow your son to marry such a -- such a man's daughter. That's very serious.

And I find that people laugh this off and say, "It's all over. Well, Hitler? That's all gone." It's only 20 years ago. This is no time. Twenty years don't -- don't figure in history. After 150 years, I'll begin to talk with you about an event, you see, but not before. And you -- it hasn't happened, yet. It hasn't been con- -- followed up to its consequences. But you live already, you see, always the next day after the editorial. And you think the editorial finishes the event. It doesn't. It's just the beginning, the first understanding of the event. A hundred fifty years later, we will know what Mr. Hitler did to the future of the Jews and the Christians in Europe -- and in America. We don't know, yet.

And this can be studied in the three articles of our faith. The Creed of the first thousand years summed up very neatly the amount of freedom that every confessor of this Creed requires, demands, expostulates, and wants to see {ascertained} to himself, his children, his family, his government, what have you.

And therefore, don't believe that you, when you live in the year 1967, could live without the year 864. This is with us. The proposition -- being that we have inherited these great truths, that you still can claim that because you are a child of God, you -- you are in the image of God, and you have an unbreakable right to live out your mind, your spirit, your physique, even your love and affection. You can even marry whom you want to marry. Do you think that is under- -- understandable to a man in -- in -- in Asia, or in India, for example, where they live by castes, and where a -- a man who is a member of another caste is not a human being, is just an animal? The Hindus do not know the brotherhood of man. Don't believe this for a minute. They have never heard of it. They deny it. They can see a man die next -- around the corner and say, "What's that to me? That's not a human being. I'm a Brahmin, but he isn't." Well, I think there are people in Woodside who think the same.

You don't know how frail the fundamental insights of your -- the human race are. And that's why I had to cas- -- chastise this gentleman who didn't know my name, but knew all about God. It is so very little that is needed, but that is exacting. You can't go behind it. Once you deny that the spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, anything is possible. And as you see, in California, it seems

that anything is possible.

You remember the man from Cupertino, you see, and the man s- -- who cut off the ear--the soldier, the Marine. We live in the midst of a re-paganization of the world, of the largest scale. And the fastest progress is made in the United States, because there is no resistance. We have no established Church; we have no tradition; we have superintendents of schools. And therefore, football is every- -- anythin- -- everything. It's all sports; it's all record. In -- in records, gentlemen and ladies, nothing is -- nothing is limited. Records you can have for obscenity; records you can have for -- illegitimate children; records you can have for beer. Record is just figure, is without any qualification. And I see with great -- really great fear this victory today of figures, you see, statistics. Because statistics have no quality. They -- they lie all the time, you see.

And I can recommend you one way out, see. Whenever something is proven to you by quantity, "Everybody does," you see --. You remember that I once was comforted by a student of mine. He came to the house, and he was working on Madison Avenue, and -- with statistics. And I said, "But this isn't so. This is terrible."

He said, "You are statistically unimportant."

Now a man can go to Heaven only today if he agrees that he is statistically unimportant. And even women, can only, you see. You must say to your -- every morning and evening--it's the best prayer: "Thank God; I am statistically unimportant."

[applause]

Now. My task now is to put before you in a lump the achievement of the thousand years between 854 and 1889. I -- take this not at random, this year; 1889 is a very peculiar year. Of course, I can't tell you the story of the thousand years. And it would even be against your interest to get this stor- -- whole story told, because the amazing fact is that it is a short story, that it can be said in one lecture, and that these thousand years have a common content, and have a common goal.

In order to do this, you will -- may say I have to curtail things; I have to abbreviate things; I have to lump them together. Of course. However, the truth will not be violated in this manner at all. The story is short, is condensed. And there is one topic.

In 1889, the president of the United States--who wasn't then the president,

but was the man who deserved to become it, Woodrow Wilson--wrote a book on the state in which he proved to his satisfaction--it was one of the reasons which enabled him to become president of the United States later, and to found the League of Nations--in which he said, "The many states, the many governments on this globe are now so close to each other, and share so many activities"--think of the mail, think of medicine, think of traffic, think of trade--"that they have to get together, and have to be united. It is impossible to sustain the notion of sovereign states."

You know that this insight of Mr. Woodrow Wilson hasn't even conquered now. Not even now does our government agree to that. And you wouldn't, probably. And pe- -- certainly the people, as I know them in California, don't agree to it. The want more sovereignty if they can. However, a wise man like Wilson banked on this and said, "The day of the individual, separate state is over."

So there is a history of 1,000 years--18- -- 854 to 1889--at whose end the best political scientist of the day said, "This story must be crossed out. It's finished. The world must become one, in some form or other." In other words, we no longer can go to war against each other, which any reasonable per- -- person knows, but about which nobody does anything.

I grew up at a time of a twilight of the gods. Between 1889, when Woodrow Wilson's book already had been published, and 1914, you couldn't get the electorate on any such platform. Woodrow Wilson couldn't have been elected president on the platform of his book, you see.

So the tragedy of thought is that we all live on two or three wavelengths. You may be in your -- in your mind much advanced, and in your politics, you still have to stick to slogans, you see, which you have to repeat over and over again.

When Wood- -- when -- Franklin D. Ro- -- Roosevelt ran for president for the third time in 1940, he was asked to go to Boston and to ensure the Irish mothers once more that no Irish child would be exposed to the dangers of warfare. Of course, he knew that six days after he would be re-elected, he would be -- to go to war against Hitler. Everybody knew it. Only the press and the electorate was not -- were not allowed to know it. And the poor man then -- said then in his despair to his advisors, "Must I really say -- tell these big lies?"

"Yes," they said. "In Boston, you must."

So he went to Boston obediently, and said it. And of course it had no

influence whatsoever, but it was the prayer mill that you at that time had to say. And this country is full of such prayer mills, as you know, that have to be said. They have no meaning. They are obsolete totally. But if the electorate doesn't hear them, you can't be elected.

This is a -- a great -- of course, that is the ruin of democracy, you see, in the long run. If this goes on too long, either the country is destroyed, because of these big lies, you see, or words have lost their meaning. And this is, at this moment, the state of democracy in this country. You -- we suffer from it in Vietnam. The -- the government doesn't tell us anything that anybody can understand.

Life is always much more serious when it comes to speech. And it reminds me of this -- of this wonderful document, here, of this man who doesn't know my name. The -- on God, you see. That it is--what did he say?--"I think the religions should be a function of man's own self-interest." Something more stupid you really cannot think up. And that's what the Irish in Boston also {thunk} up. It was -- you see, religion was something in their self-interest.

The content of these thousand years, from 854 and -- to 1889 can be defined, and you all know it. Every part of the globe has had an opportunity of speaking up and making its own contribution. If you think of Italy, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Spain, Sweden--with Selma Lagerl”f, for example--you can only admire the abundance with which voices of the human orchestra have begun to resound, so that you and I, we know of brothers who speak in a different language, and yet are needed to our own edification. I don't think that a child should grow up without the fairy tales of Selma Lagerl”f. You certainly shouldn't grow up without the dramas of -- from Shakespeare. And on it goes. And the novels of Balzac. That is, you take it for granted that we live in a concert hall of many national voices. These national voices did not exist in 854. All saints spoke the common language of the Church liturgy, of the Communion supper. But they did not look back on national creations of a national literature.

You take this today for granted. It -- is on the way out. I don't think we will have such a national literature any longer in the future. I'm very pessimistic about that. I don't see any signs that there is even the possibility of such productions, because the nations have no longer this warmth and this interest towards themselves. A man in Paris doesn't look any longer only to Montmartre, and to the Pont des Arts. But he may, just like Exup‚ry, go to -- to -- to Brazil. Well, once Mr. Exup‚ry--you know how -- what's his first name? Saint-? wie? -- SaintExup‚ry. If he lives long enough in Brazil, he doesn't contribute to the French literature. That's impossible. And that's what you see happening, you see. Imagine! All the contributions I could have made to German literature. Now I'm

here.

But that's very serious, because it hits everybody. And therefore the time of national literature is gone, except for the departments of literature. And it must go. We can't -- we can't afford these watertight compartments. Now for a thousand years, from 854 exactly, to 1889, the nations of the world, the civilized nations, the Christian nations--however you call them--ensouled all the members of their communities with a tremendous enthusiasm, and with a spirit which exalted these people not to saints, but ensouled them. And the symbol of this day -- of this life of the nations is the holiday of All Souls. And that's a very strange story how that came about. I told you that All Saints was established in 854, by the pope. And still in spir- -- togetherness with the Greek Church, before the Schism. And for that reason, the -- the saints are remembered all over the Christian Church.

With souls it is very different. In the year 1000, there was a pious abbot. And I think he deserves to be mentioned as a founder of Europe, and the founder of the western world. His name was Odilo, which means a man of nobility. And he was the abbot of a monastery situated in the -- in a place similar to Chicago in Europe, in the midst of the Rh“ne, the Seine, and the--what's the third?--and the Rhine valley: Cluny. The Cluniacs, Cluniac monks--you may have heard the name. They are -- have quite still a -- little reputation. The important thing about this abbot, however, was that he took pity on all the unredeemed, on all the people who had not gone to grammar school, and not gone to church, who had been not baptized, who were pagans to the Gentile world. And he said, "They are my ancestors. They are our brothers and sisters? Where are they? They have lived before us. We cannot deny them. In addition to All Saints, who are now glorifying the Lord's name by their victories in missions -- the field of missions, by Christianizing the world, we must now show our love to those unconverted masses: noblemen, chieftains, hunters, what have you, sailors." And he instituted for their salvation, the day after All Saints, which to this day in the calendar is ti- -- entitled All Souls.

He ran into trouble with this. And this trouble I think I should tell you of, because it shows you how difficult the slightest progress in the history of mankind in -- in the respect to his soul, is. The popes in Rome said, "You can't do this. You can't make the 2nd of November in the day of All Souls, because All Saints is a big holiday. And a big holiday in the Christian Church consists of an eve and two days."

You see, this is so hard for -- any man who comes from Europe to understand that you don't believe that Christmas is two holidays, and Easter is two holidays, and Pentecost is two holidays. With us, the Monday is as much the

holiday of Easter Sunday, you see, as Easter Sunday itself. And you smuggle, you -- you -- how do you do it? you -- you swindle now, you know. You have always now, when the holiday is on a Sunday, you add the Monday. But that's just a return to sanity, because you can't have a high holiday out of -- consisting of 24 hours. That's an error of judgment.

And the word "day" -- you are such superstitious people that the very word "day" is misleading you. A day must be 24 hours. Who says this? If you are as divine as you are, your holiday must always be at least 48 hours. The rest is nonsense. The error in America is that you think because something is called a day, it lasts 24 hours. That is -- I call superstition. But you call me superstitious. So we call -- scold each other.

But this debate has really taken place over hundreds of years between the people who believe in the holiday of the soul, which of course must express itself in a true holiday of infinite length, and the -- the geo- -- -metricians, and these terrible arithmeticians who count 24 hours and say, "That's one day." But it can't be a holiday. A holiday is outside the -- the clockwork of the -- of the precision mechanism.

The -- the Jewish week of course has this same example, where the -- where the -- the holiday on New Year is two days, also.

Well, what happened? In 19- -- 998, 130 years after the establishment of All -- All Saints was that this abbot of Cluny became very popular with the masses in Europe. And they all followed his proposition to set a -- one day aside, the 2nd of November, for the memory of all the un-christianized, unbaptized heathen, and decided to pray them free for Heaven, and to celebrate their memory and said, "They did something, too. Yes, they were not baptized, they were not cardinals and bishops. And they were not even confirmed, but they were our ancestors. And they are mankind. And therefore, they have to have -- receive some rank, some standing in the community." And they did.

And this debate between Rome and Cluny has lasted 800 years. For 800 years, Cluny said, "November 2nd is a special holiday for the non-Christian souls."

And the pope in Rome said, "I'm sorry. You can't celebrate it, this. Because there have to be three masses said on a high holiday, like All Saints. And this takes two -- three days -- and an eve and two days. And therefore since the Mass has to be said on November 2nd still in memory of All Saints, All Souls is not a Roman holiday."

And this has lasted to the end of the 19th century. For 1,000 years, then, the cleavage between the monastic tradition of praying for the Gentiles, praying for the unconverted, praying for the, so to speak, the earlier, the pristine world, you see, and the triumph over the deeds of the saints who had already accomplished great things in the field of missions la- -- has lasted.

I think this is the best way for me to teach you history. This cleavage is the content of a whole thousand years. That there was this cleft, that the people did not agree: that's the grandeur of the story. Because there were two powers at work. One, who said, "We must get all the nobility out of the Gallic spirit, out of the Italian spirit, out of the Swedish spirit, out of the Finnish spirit, Danish, what have you. All the nations must become vocal with their -- with their unified, with their coherent, cooperative efforts," I should say, "and the Christian method which says the individual, perfect soul." The peace of the individual person must be stressed. A saint is a man who can show his perfection as a creature of God, single. And a soul is somebody who is within a group, and is there the ferment, thanks to which the group as such is humanized and is alive.

This has lasted a thousand years. So I always think that this would be a good way of teaching history, for finding the conflicts that have -- had to be kept burning, have to -- be kept searing people, because that the Cluniac monks, and the bishops and cardinals in Rome could not agree on the treatment of this new holiday is just a wonderful story. It -- it wasn't -- wouldn't have been good if they had agreed. Because both parties now got going. Both parties tried to prove their point. And in this competition, of course, we get the French, and the English, and the Italian, and the German character -- beautifully unfolded. All the great deeds of the nations of the -- of the last thousand years are the fruits of this germination, of this seed of All Souls.

What is a soul? A soul is only a living part of a whole body politic, of a whole human carrier. A saint is somebody who is able to stand alone, to be understood by you and admired for his singleness in his personality, as we call it today with a very poor word. Whenever you try to use the word "personality," get a hiccup.

So that's why I feel -- felt I should do this today. Put the day of All Souls as the title page -- on the title page of a whole thousand years. The protest of the laity, represented by this monk of Cluny, Odilo, against a purely clerical, purely sacramental view of history, bor- -- has borne fruit. If you today have these national characters -- I've written this whole volume here, on the European revolutions, on the way in which, under the influence of the day of All Souls, the English, the Italians, the French, the Russians have made their way into the world so that you today know very well what to expect from a member of these

nations, as their great contribution to civilization. You know that in Paris, there is something to be had for everybody. And you know that this is true of London and Oxford. And you know that this is true of Rome and Florence. And it is even true of Heidelberg and Madrid.

You are inclined to forget these things today, and not even to hear them. The terrible way of teaching history today is that it is only secular. They only tell you, I mean, the number of -- copies sold by Shakespeare in -- in the -- in the cheapest People's Library. The story is much more complicated. Before these nations could write Shakespeare's plays, they had also to write Chaucer. And they had also to write many -- religious poetry. The -- the life of these nations is infinitely richer than in your -- in your plan today of studies is ever admitted. We have today a dried-out vision of mankind.

You look at quantities and how many plays acted. It isn't this. It is the unfolding of a tremendous family conversation through the ages, gentlemen. And that's so interesting, and so exciting. And it is so incredibly rich and varied. Who has still read Tolstoy's War and Peace? Please. Well, that is not bad. Thank you.

But it is a very small proportion. You couldn't live a hundred years ago, although Russia had -- had en- -- serfdom -- serf- -- Russia was far away. Who -- nobody had gone to Russia in person. They had no electric light. They had not even toilet -- water toilets. But they had the greatest poetry of the 19th century. War and Peace is a book that is -- there is nothing in Europe to match it.

Now that's a miracle. Here was a Greek Catholic country, even through the Schisma, separated, you see, religiously from the east- -- western world. And there were -- was a country with slaves, just as bad as Mississippi. And the greatest poem of Europe was composed in 1861 by Leo Tolstoy in Russia. Whether you like it or not, or whether you take notice of it, you won't change the fact that it was the greatest poem, and remains the greatest poem. And of course it -- has disappeared from the American curriculum by a kind of aping of the Russian Bolsheviks now, because the Bolsheviks can't make too much of a book written by a Count Tolstoy, you see. So I understand now that in your -- in your Western Civilization it is not included. Terrible.

The funny thing in America is your eagerness to fall for this stupidity of Russian present-day literature. Gentlemen, there is a wonderful literature in Russia. Only it is pre-Bolshevik. And the Bolshevik literature is no literature. It's statistics.

And it's very funny. All America is sick with this idea, that you must learn

what these damned Russians -- write today. It's not worth reading. It's on water toilets. Very strange, you see.

A -- a completely wrong surrender to the Russians. You must love the Russians, of course, but for what they are great for. And not for this Idiotie of Mr. Karl Marx. That's not a Russian. He lived in England, you see, and that's why everything he has written is so boring.

So things are a little more complicated than you think. The blossoming, the bloo- -- blooming, the coming into fruit -- seed and fruit of the various nations of Europe is the miraculous story of the last thousand years. I don't -- I -- I'm not sorry that I have not the time to go into the details. As I said, I have written this -- this volume. That's now in its fourth edition. It is called The European Revolutions. And you can read it. The English title is Out of Revolution--Autobiography of Western Man.

I mention this only to say it isn't laziness that I do not go into the details of this story. But it seems to me necessary at this moment to stress the fact that there was a common enterprise, a common undertaking, a -- unified action over a thousand years. Your belief in history is so totally shaken, so totally destroyed. You believe so much in the events of the day, which are no events. It's not an event that some horse runs over some other horse. One is called "man," the other is called "horse." What's the difference?

The -- we -- you have an accident history to- -- nowadays, consisting of innumerable facts, you see. This is not history. History is only there where man takes a new lease on life. And in this -- these last thousand years, under the influence of All Souls, you and I have been invi- -- invited. If we cannot become independent saints, personalities, like Saint Augustine, to cooperate in a group and be ensouled, and inside this group, like a good orchestra, like a good theatrical group --. You all do this now, if you -- when you practice here for a play. You know that the individual is not the -- the soul alone. It's an ensoulment. You participate in a process thanks to which you breathe inside a harmonious whole. And the word "soul" cannot be -- abandoned.

When I was young, it was the fashion--and it's now the fashion in this country--to say, "Souls?" Williams James used to say, "I don't know who they are." Now he was the most ensouled man of them all. But he had the -- the audacity to say that he didn't know whether there were souls. And -- all our psychologists deny the -- the human soul. But you know very well that if a -- a troupe of actors plays together well, there is a common spirit. And they are ensouled. And not one of them is the soul, the over-soul at all. But everybody receives from this rhythm of the whole some element of life without which he

would be all the po- -- the poorer. You couldn't recognize him if he hadn't been inflated, and blown up, and {suggested}, so to speak, the activities which come, stem from this cooperative -- cooperative fellowship. It is not just a troupe on the stage. But here in this classroom, we couldn't sit together at peace if there was not a common spirit at this moment. It's not my soul, it's not your soul; there's no over-soul, you see. But it is ensouled. And any good classroom has this. Any good family room has this. Yet we live in a mom- -- at a moment where these bastards decline to admit that man has a soul. That's really some achievement.

And -- and every little, smallest endeavor here, be it in the office of the president, of the chancellor, of the provost, or on your own, depends on this ensoulment, that people understand each other, open up to each other, expect from each other to be helped along and to be assisted. We take it so much for granted that nobody seems to care what this is. Well, it is here, thanks to the day of All Souls, as it has encouraged you and me for the last thousand years, and I hope will still encourage us a little longer.

That's why I don't think it is necessary for me now to unfold the story of these various nations, but to insist that the day of All Souls has been operative from 854 to 1889, to the moment in which the -- the man, the future president of the United States said, "It's all over. It's too tight now. It's all there. We have to do something in a new range, of a new unity. Automatically, these nations are so powerful now, and so independent, and so sovereign, you see. If there is a misunderstanding, they'll destroy each other." And lo and behold! Twenty-five years later, they did destroy each other.

And -- don't forget. Take this -- write this down, because nobody wants to know it today. There has never been made peace since 1919 -- oder 1914. We live at war since 1914 in this western world of ours. Think of what this means. It's all swindle, when you are told that there has been made peace. Never has there been made peace. United States, as you know, went home without the League in a --. When -- Wilson went home, he gathered the students of this country at his bedside, paralyzed as he was, and a dying man, in 1923, and he said, "Since peace has not been made, I -- warn you that the Second World War must come, much more horrible than the First."

This was said in 1923. But of course, the boulevard papers, and the -- the great -- great shots, Time and Life, they didn't have to care. So they could have the illusions, and you have the illusion today that there is peace. Do you think that Germany and the United States are at peace? They are not. That we are in Vietnam, at -- at war is a salvation, because it at least reminds you of the reality. You live in a fiction. There is no peace at this moment. Never has there been made peace since 1914. And if you think -- would ponder over this, you would be

surprised that we still breathe, that we still eat, that we still even teach. This is the war situation. All the rest is bunk. And that's -- that of course shows in our -- your treatment of Vietnam. You take it on the Vietnamese your own bad conscience that you haven't made peace in Europe. We are riddled with war. But nobody is allowed to say these things. They're too disagreeable, you see. You deal -- you prefer to deal with -- with Mr. Powell and Mr. Dodd.

The ensoulment of the -- mankind is at a standstill at this moment, because the old functions, when peace was made, in war treaties and so, and genuine -- genuine sponsorship is -- is gone. I mean, look -- this behavior of Mr. DeGaulle with the English. They just don't talk to each other anything honest anymore.

Well, I could go on forever. This -- the important thing is, however, the fact that the -- a whole thousand years of All Souls have ceased to function. Next time I propose to put before you the fact that this was felt deeply in 1889. It's a strange year. Everything has gotten -- come together in this year. It is never mentioned by the learned. It is the most important year in the history of the last thousand years. Why?

The day of All Souls ceased to function. Somebody exclaimed at that time, "God is dead." You hear today as an echo, Mr. Harvey Cox: the death of God. The theologians -- they only -- always come 80 years later. And that's what they say now. But it was said then, and it was effective then. For many reasons, I could prove this to you. And in a new cry began, by the way starting in America, just as Woodrow Wilson was the first swallow, the first man's knowing that the day of the sovereign state had -- had vanished, so the workers of -- America came to Europe in 1889, unknown to you--and said, "We need an international holiday for the working man, because our body is enslaved and served everywhere in the -- the globe. The globe is one. Mechanics, coal mining, steam, electricity, that's all international. That's worldwide. All this is nonsense. There is no American economy. There is no German economy. There is no French economy." And you wouldn't be -- you wouldn't believe it, but -- but it were -- Americans who invented at that time May Day, which is now the international payday, as you know, holiday of the Russian revolution.

Before there was any Labor Day in the United States, there was May Day as an American invention. I think it's very important for you to understand that long before there was a rift between Communism, and Socialism, and liberalism in the world, there was unity. It were -- American working men who proposed May 1st, which is now the great Russian -- Communist holiday. They came to Paris on -- in the year of the Lord 1889, and begged their French colleagues and their German colleagues to celebrate May 1st. I think that's quite a story, because

it shows you that what is happening, since 1889, this lack of peace, this breakdown of sovereignty, and this getting together on our physical needs is a very important, central story already for nearly a hundred years. Only your and my mind is so slow, of course, you cannot understand anything that really happens unless it has lasted a hundred years.

Jesus Christ -- Christianity was not visible, before the end of the first century, to the Romans. And the same way it is true today that the physical unity of the universe will have to be celebrated in the future, but it is already around us. It's already with us.

So I have saved up the problems of Labor Day, the problem of May Day, the problem of our physical unity on this globe for the last meeting.