Fall 2001 $5.00

Journal of Poetry, Science, and Statecraft

In the Ninth and Tenth centuries,Northern Europe gazed at the marvel of

Al-Andalus in awe, not without a tinge ofsuspicion, wondering what the secretbehind the brilliance of Arab Spain couldbe. The truth is, that Islamic Spain was ahumanist culture which had been foundedon a crucial scientific discovery: the Arabiclanguage.

Mohammed, whom Muslims considerthe last prophet in a series beginning withAbraham, was an illiterate, who receivedthe revelation, contained in the holy book of the Koran, with the injunction byGod: “Read! Recite!” The miracle whichgave birth to the new religion was thereforethe miracle of language, whose appearanceto Mohammed echoed the act by which

God had given the gift of speech tothe first man, Adam. It was notlanguage in general, but the Arabiclanguage, based on that spoken by theQuayrash clan in Arabia, but elevatedthrough the poetry of the Koran to aliterary tongue. It was what Dantewould later call an “illustriousvernacular,” a language spoken by thepeople, but forged through thetransmission of universal ideas, in thiscase divine revelation, into a vehiclecapable of transmitting the mostprofound ideas regarding man and theuniverse.

Since it is incumbent on Muslims to readand recite the Koran in Arabic in dailyprayers, believers who were won over to the

faith had to learn tospeak, read, and writethe language of theKoran. Its expansionwas tantamount to aliteracy campaign, asIslam spread likewildfire through non-Arab populations, to theEast through Persia andIndia up to China andsoutheast Asia, as well aswestward across NorthAfrica and into Spain.

* * *The great architectural achievements

of the Islamic Renaissance are adorned,both inside and out, with the poetry of theKoran and other works. Here, visual beauty implies the musicality of language.A few examples are shown.

[SEE ‘Andalusia, Gateway to the Golden Renaissance’]

The Poetry of the Koran Above: Exteriors:Dome of the Rock,Jerusalem (l.),Madrasa al-Attarin,Fez, Morocco, 14thcentury (r.).

Left: Interior,Madrasa-mosque ofSultan Hasan, Cairo,1356-1363.

G.D

agli

Ort

i

Moh

amm

edS

ijelm

assi

Hen

riS

tierli

n,G

enev

a

Gér

ard

Deg

eorg

e

Gér

ard

Deg

eorg

e

Right: Wazir Khanmosque, Lahore,

Pakistan, 1643.Calligraphic inscription

in cursive style.

Left: Interior of theGreat Mosque, Córdoba,Spain, restored by al-Hakam II, c. 960.Epigraphic bands inKufic style frame themihrab.

“It is through beauty that one proceeds to freedom.”—Friedrich Schiller

FID 01-003

Vol. X, No. 3 Fall 2001

EDITOR-IN-CHIEFWilliam F. Wertz, Jr.

EDITORKenneth Kronberg

ART DIRECTORAlan Yue

EDITORIAL ASSISTANTDenise Henderson

BOOKSKatherine Notley

Fidelio (ISSN 1059-9126) ispublished by the SchillerInstitute, Inc., P.O. Box 20244,Washington, D.C. 20041-0244. www.schillerinstitute.orgEditorial services are providedby KMW PublishingCompany, Inc. © SchillerInstitute, Inc.

Fidelio is dedicated to thepromotion of a new GoldenRenaissance based upon theconcept of agape or charity, asthat is reflected in the creation ofartistic beauty, the scientificmastery of the laws of thephysical universe, and thepractice of republican statecraftfor the benefit of our fellow man.

Subscriptions by mail are$20.00 for 4 issues in the U.S.and Canada. Airmailsubscriptions to other countriesare $40.00 for 4 issues. Payment must be made in U.S.currency. Make check ormoney order payable to Schiller Institute, Inc.

On the CoverManuscript illustration to al-Hariri’s Maqamat, Yahyaal-Wasiti, Baghdad (1237).‘Dialogue of Civilizations’:A medieval Arabic library.(Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris).

Editorial 2 The Continuing American Revolution—Versus Brzezinski and September 11

News 56 U.S. Meet: ‘Nothing To Fear But Denial Itself’57 Berlin Seminar Urges New Monetary System58 Italy Trips Spur Support for New Bretton Woods 59 LaRouche Addresses Russian Duma, Scientists60 India’s Intelligentsia Absorbs Global Overview62 Ibero-American Economists Dialogue with LaRouche

Commentary 63 An Evening in the ‘Simultaneity of Eternity’—With Shakespeare, Keats, and William Warfield

Exhibits 72 The Heavenly Guide

Drama 75 Nathan Still Inspires the Sublime

Museums 77 Recapturing a Proud German-Jewish Heritage

Books 79 The Economics of the Noösphere80 The Soldier and the State81 How To Defeat Global Strategic Irregular Warfare;

To Stop Terrorism, Shut Down ‘Dope, Inc.’

DIALOGUEOf

CIVILIZATIONSA Symposium

Invitation To ParticipateIn an InternationalCorrespondence

For a ‘Dialogue of Cultures’Helga Zepp LaRouche

4

Lyndon LaRouche in Rome:Toward a Dialogue of

Civilizations6

Andalusia, GatewayTo the Golden Renaissance

Muriel Mirak Weissbach

22

Contributions to the DialogueRecent statements by

Mohammad Hosni Mubarak, President of Egypt

Seyyed Mohammad Khatami,President of Iran

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

36

An Invitation for DialogueWith China

Pope John Paul II

46

Matteo Ricci and the DisasterOf the ‘Rites Controversy’

Michael Billington

50

As Lyndon LaRouche stresses in his remarks tothe Italian Institute for Asia in Rome,published in this issue, contrary to the fairy-

tale proferred by the Administration and retailed bythe mass media, Osama bin Laden could not have beenthe culprit responsible for the events of September 11.Rather, such a complicated operation could only havebeen carried out by rogue elements within the U.S.military-intelligence command, for the purpose ofeffecting a coup d’état against the Bush Administration.There could have been foreign accomplices, but noArab government, no Arab terrorist organization,could have done it.

The purpose of the attackwas to drive the United Statesinto global, “Clash of Civili-zations” warfare—very likely,by pushing the U.S. to support an Israeli launching ofgeneral war against the Arab world—for thegeopolitical purpose of destroying the current efforts forEurasian cooperation and economic development.

There are three locations of this geopolitical policy:the Blair government of Britain; the military commandof Israel; and the financier circles in the U.S., typifiedby the faction identified with Henry Kissinger,Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Samuel P. Huntington. Thisdoes not necessarily mean that these individuals weredirectly involved in September 11. But, the attack wasaimed at launching their “Clash of Civilizations,” asthe pretext for the new Anglo-American imperiumadvocated by their Harvard mentor, William YandellElliott—i.e., the “Open Conspiracy” of H.G. Wells.

Fortunately, thus far the attempted coup has notsucceeded. Unfortunately, it has also not yet beendefeated.

As this issue of Fidelio goes to press, it is useful to review the global strategic situation as elaborated

by Lyndon LaRouche:

1. The world has entered the crucial, terminal phaseof disintegration of the present internationalmonetary-financial system, characterized by anaccelerating physical-economic deflation inproduction, and a futile attempt to delay thecollapse of the monetary-financial system, throughaccelerating growth of an already hyperinflationaryfinancial bubble. The end of this process has beenreached, as evidenced not only by Argentina, but byJapan—and when Japan goes, by the U.S. itself.

2. As long as governments cling to defending the falseaxiomatic policy-shapingguidelines of the post-1971I.M.F. system, each will betoppled by succeedingreplacements, until either

those nations begin to disintegrate, or governmentsemerge which reject that I.M.F. system altogether,and proceed as LaRouche has instructed: Put theexisting system through bankruptcy reorganization,create Hamiltonian national-banking systemsunder the authority of the sovereign nation-state,and establish a New Bretton Woods system ofsovereign nation-states committed to the GeneralWelfare of each and all.

3. This economic collapse is accompanied by the threatof a global “Clash of Civilizations,” of devastatingworldwide religious warfare, reenacting the horrorof Europe’s 1618-1648 warfare, but on a global scale.The only alternative to this “Clash of Civilizations,”is a dialogue of civilizations, and a commitment toglobal economic development centered onLaRouche’s Eurasian Land-Bridge conception.

4. It is not likely that the needed global economic andrelated reforms could be made in a timely fashion,unless the U.S.A., the world’s most powerfulnation, were to assume the role implicit in whatTreasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton defined asthe American System of political-economy, andunless it carried out that role in a manner consistent

2

E DI TO RI AL

The Continuing American Revolution—Versus Brzezinski and September 11

Visit the new Schiller Institute website at

www.schillerinstitute.org

with the qualities of leadership of BenjaminFranklin, Abraham Lincoln, and FranklinRoosevelt. Thus, although international conditionshave undermined the institutions of U.S. domesticand foreign policies of practice, the affirmation ofthe original American Revolution, as againstAmerican Toryism’s corruption of that originalintention, gives the task before the U.S. today theessential characteristic of a continuing AmericanRevolution.

Dialogue of Civilizations

This issue of Fidelio begins, appropriately, with aninvitation issued by Schiller Institute founder HelgaZepp LaRouche, to participate in an InternationalCorrespondence for a Dialogue of Cultures. The issueas a whole is designed to contribute to sparking such adialogue, to counter the attempted coup d’état now inprocess. As you will read in the news section, theLaRouches have carried this message throughout theworld in recent months, with crucial trips to Italy,Russia, and India, as well as teleconferences beforeaudiences in Mexico, Peru, and Guatemala.

The issue includes a feature article by Muriel MirakWeissbach, “Andalusia, Gateway to the GoldenRenaissance,” which discusses the unique contributionto European culture made by Islamic Spain. Thedialogue fostered between the Platonists of theEuropean Islamic heritage, and their Christianhumanist interlocutors, stands in stark contrast to thethe “Clash of Civilizations” mentality of the Crusadesand the Inquisition.

This is followed by excerpts of important speechesgiven by Presidents Mubarak of Egypt and Khatami ofIran, and a statement by Lyndon LaRouche on theecumenical principle.

Moreover, as LaRouche emphasized in Rome, theBrzezinski-Huntington “Clash of Civilizations” isnot only aimed at fostering war against Islam: thelong-term enemy is China. In this context, we publishPope John Paul II’s message marking the 400thanniversary of the arrival in Beijing of the missionary

Father Matteo Ricci, accompanied by MichaelBillington’s “Matteo Ricci, The Grand Design, andthe Disaster of the ‘Rites Controversy.’”

We are at a unique branching point in worldhistory, and there are only two alternatives. Ifhumanity is to survive and flourish in the Twenty-First century, then we must follow the lead of LyndonLaRouche, by realizing the true purpose of theAmerican Revolution on a global scale. Failure to doso, will bring with it a devastation far greater than thatexperienced by Europe in the Thirty Years’ War.

3

On the Thirty Years’ War

All the events of this period, if they did not originatein, soon became mixed up with, the question of

religion, and no state was either too great or too little, tofeel, directly or indirectly, more or less of its influence.

Against the reformed doctrine and its adherents thehouse of Austria directed, almost exclusively, thewhole of its immense political power. In France, theReformation had enkindled a civil war which, underfour stormy reigns, shook the kingdom to its founda-tions, brought foreign armies into the heart of thecountry, and for a half a century rendered it the sceneof the most mournful disorders. It was the Reforma-tion too, that rendered the Spanish yoke intolerable tothe Flemings, and awakened in them both the desireand the courage to throw off its fetters, while it alsoprincipally furnished them with the means of theiremancipation. And as to England, all the evils withwhich Philip II threatened Elizabeth, were mainlyintended in revenge for her having taken his Protes-tant subjects under her protection, and placing herselfat the head of a religious party which it was his aimand endeavour to extirpate. . . .

Fearful, indeed, and destructive was the first move-ment in which this general political sympathyannounced itself; a desolating war of thirty years,which, from the interior of Bohemia to the mouth ofthe Scheldt, and from the banks of the Po to the coastsof the Baltic, devastated whole countries, destroyedharvests, and reduced towns and villages to ashes;which opened a grave for many thousand combatants,and for half a century smothered the glimmeringsparks of civilization in Germany, and threw back theimproving manners of the country into their pristinebarbarity and wildness.

—Friedrich Schiller, from the ‘History of the Thirty Years’ War in Germany’

But, in order to avert such unspeakable misery ofmany millions of people, let us hope that such a dialoguecan help to deepen the understanding between culturesin time to prevent the worst.

Even though there are many differences between thesituation in 1453, when Constantinople was conqueredby Mohammed II, and today’s attacks, and although thebackground to the attacks in the United States representsa completely different phenomenon, the reference to thisdate is, from one important viewpoint, reasonable.

At a moment when lesser spirits werescreaming for revenge and retaliation, Nicolaus of Cusa,the 600th anniversary of whose birth we celebrate this

year, wrote, under the impression of news of the horrors,his magnificent piece De Pace Fidei (On the Peace ofFaith). This dialogue, in which Nicolaus had representa-tives of seventeen religions and nations participate, can,also today, show us the way.

Nicolaus begins De Pace Fidei with the followingwords:

“The news of the atrocities which have recently beenperpetrated by the Turkish King in Constantinople andhave now been divulged, has so inflamed a man, whoonce saw that region, with zeal for God [Nicolaus istalking about himself and his journey to that city], thatamongst many sighs he asked the Creator of all thingsif in His kindness He might moderate the persecution,which raged more than usual on account of diversereligious rites. Then it occurred that after severaldays—indeed, on account of lengthy, continuous medi-tation—a vision was manifested to the zealous man,from which he concluded that it would be possible,through the experience of a few wise men who are wellacquainted with all the diverse practices which areobserved in religions across the world, to find a uniqueand propitious concordance, and through this to consti-tute a perpetual peace in religion upon the appropriateand true course.”

Nicolaus then presents the representatives of the sev-enteen religions and nations in a dialogue with the“Word of God,” as all the conflicts amongst them always

4

Invitation To ParticipateIn an International Correspondence

For a ‘Dialogue Of Cultures’

DIALOGUEOf

CIVILIZATIONSA Symposium

Helga Zepp LaRoucheOct. 15, 2001

The horror-vision of a “Clash of Civilizations” has,unfortunately, since the attacks in the United States andthe military strikes against Afghanistan, already begun tobecome a reality. Whatever may be uncovered as thetruth behind the attacks, any further spiral of violencewill cause a collapse of humanity into a New Dark Age.

In this situation, it is all the more urgent, to defineanew the basis within reason and universal principles,which instead make possible a “Dialogue of Cultures”and an ecumenical understanding among the religions onthe highest level. Such a dialogue were also necessary if,after a period of continuous violence, and decades or evena century of war, the community of peoples is to be recon-structed and nation-states to be rebuilt from the ruins.

erupted in His name. As most people lived in poverty, ingreat drudgery, and in slavish dependency upon theirmasters, they would by no means have the leisure to usetheir free will and to develop their own cognitive powers.The concerns of daily life would divert them too muchfrom the search for the Hidden God. But if an assemblyof wise men of the different religions could come togeth-er, then the solution would be “simple.”

Nicolaus’s solution is conceived from the standpointof coincidentia oppositorum (the coincidence of oppo-sites) “from above.” One fault would be, to fail to dis-tinguish between the prophets and God Himself, andotherwise to mistake the traditions, to which one isaccustomed, with the truth. In that God addresses therepresentatives of the religions, as wise men, He easilysucceeds in convincing them, that there is only one wis-dom and one truth.

The oldest of the participating representatives of thereligions, a Greek, asks, how to bring together the diver-sity of religions, since they would hardly accept one newunited religion, as they had defended their own withtheir blood. The Word of God answers, that they shouldnot introduce any new religion, but that the true religionprecedes all other religions. The peace which brings a newunity of religion is not a synthetic, new belief, but, rather,what is reasonable to reason, as soon as reason becomesconscious of its premises. The Greek representative reactsenthusiastically over the “spirit of reason” (spiritus ratio-

nalis), who is “capable of wonderful arts” (capax artitiummirabilium), from which comes human perfectibility. Ifthis spirit is oriented toward wisdom, he can approachher more and more. He will never reach absolute wis-dom, but come closer and closer to her, and to him shewill taste as an eternal food. Unity is therefore attainable,if all spirits are oriented toward wisdom and truth, andthis truth is recognized as primary and basic.

The Cusan approach is therefore totallydifferent from the modern pantheistic or phenomenolog-ical forms of ecumenical dialogue, in which the existenceof the one knowable truth is denied, in favor of a democ-ratic plurality of religious opinions. This dialogue canonly have success, if all participants start from a view ofman, which understands man as a “living image of God”(imago viva Dei), whose likeness to God consists in thefact that his potentially infinitely perfectible cognitivecapabilities can always better understand the lawfulnessof the order of creation, and with the application of thiscognition, can improve the living standards of all men,and increase the population potential of the Earth.

Pope John Paul II has, after all, by his most recentjourneys, stressed, that there is no alternative to such anecumenical dialogue on the highest level.

Helga Zepp LaRouche is the founder of the internationalSchiller Institute.

5

Lyndon LaRouche and Helga Zepp LaRouche meet India’s President in New Delhi, Dec. 5, 2001. Left to right: EIR correspondent Ramtanu Maitra, President Shri KocherilRaman Narayanan, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., and Helga Zepp LaRouche.

Offi

ceof

the

Pre

side

ntof

Indi

a

Sen. Giulio Orlando: The last time we were together, we had a very inter-esting exchange of views, and, given the nature of the international situa-tion today, I’m sure the discussion will be very interesting. Along with thedirectors of the Institute, we decided to ask some parliamentarians to bepresent at our meeting. I would like to introduce them now, beginningwith the vice president of the Institute, Sen. Gian Guido Folloni, a ministerin the previous government; the Hon. Fabio Evangelisti, former Memberof Parliament; the Hon. Tullio Grimaldi; the Hon. Mario Brunetti; lawyer

Rita Bruno; Dr. Anto-nio Loche, general sec-retary of the Institute; astudent from the Uni-versity of Rome, as wellas others. We will nowgive the floor to Mr.LaRouche.

Lyndon H. LaRouche,Jr.: Well, we are in atypical situation today.We have the disinte-gration of the world’spresent monetary andfinancial system. And

6

Lyndon LaRouche In Rome: Toward

A Dialogue of Civilizations

On Oct. 16, 2001, Lyndon LaRoucheand Helga Zepp LaRouche, in Rome for

a few days of meetings and discussions,were invited to address an informal

seminar held at the Italian Institute forAsia, an organization which for yearshas promoted economic cooperation,

cultural dialogue, and contacts betweenItaly and all the countries of Asia and

the Middle East. About twenty people,including senators, parliamentary

deputies, and a delegation of theInternational Civil Rights Movement

Solidarity (Movimento Internazionaleper i Diritti Civili Solidarietà),

participated in the informal event. Themeeting was opened by the president of

the Institute, Sen. Giulio Orlando,former minister of the Italian

government.We publish here the transcript of the

seminar. The questions and comments bythe Italian speakers have been translated.

DIALOGUEOf

CIVILIZATIONSA Symposium

Pope John Paul II.Arm

enia

nP

resi

dent

Koc

haria

n’s

web

site

we have the danger of things like world war. We’ve had,despite the newspaper reports, an attempted coup d’étatin the United States, against the Bush Administration.And, unfortunately, that is the thing we must first con-sider, because otherwise we would completely misunder-stand the world situation in all its aspects.

The monetary and financial crisis has been foreseen.There have been for some years, discussions of policy tobe taken in case of such a crisis.All these discussions recently arebased on the assumption of thepost-Soviet period. With the col-lapse of the Soviet Union as anadversary of the United States,the question was whether theAnglo-American powers, andwith the Israelis, could establish aRoman Empire. It’s a specialkind of Roman Empire—likethat of ancient Venice, whenVenice ruled the Mediterraneanas a maritime power—of a ren-tier-financier form. We havetoday, with The Netherlands

developments, in modern times, and with the develop-ments of England, Britain, we have an international inter-est, which is centered in London, with a chief ally in NewYork, which is a world rentier-financier imperium.

Increasingly, since the period 1966 to 1971, this imperi-al power has dominated the world with a new monetarysystem of its own. The change from a fixed-exchange-ratesystem, to a floating-exchange-rate system, in 1971-1972,

established a new world mone-tary and financial system. Thissystem is now disintegrating. So,therefore, you have an Anglo-American rentier-financierimperial power, which is threat-ened with the extinction of itssystem.

The character of this isdemonstrated by the attempt,since 1989, to establish what’scalled “globalization.” Forexample, in 1975-1976, with thelaunching of the attempt to glob-alize Italy, under the I.M.F. con-ditionalities, there’s been the

7

Iranian President Seyyed Mohammad Khatami.

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.,at a conference in Germany,August 2001.

UN

/DP

IPho

to/S

usan

Mar

kisz

EIRNS/Gene Schenk

attempt to reduce even all existing nation-states, of Euro-pean advanced nation-states, to essentially colonialdependencies of an international rentier-financier power.So, essentially, the conflict has been, and is now, a conflictbetween the modern form of nation-state, sovereignnation-state, and an imperial power of a rentier-financierform, a new kind of Roman Empire.

So, therefore, the conflict is essentially between theforce behind this, and the forces which represent theinterests of the modern sovereign nation-state.

The implication of this is seen clearly, when you thinkabout, what do we do, as nation-states, in the case of a col-lapse of the financial system? Under natural law, as it’s beendefined in Europe since the Fifteenth-century Renaissance,as established by Nicolaus of Cusa’s Concordantia catholica,the only legitimate basis for the existence of a nation, anational government, is the efficient commitment of thatgovernment to promote the General Welfare, the commongood, of all of the people, and among nations.

Now, despite the problems of the religious war periodof the Sixteenth and Seventeenth century, we have man-

aged to maintain that legacy of the common welfare, thecommon good, as a general fundamental principle of lawof civilized society. Which means, in a time of crisis, thestate, the sovereign state, must intervene, in collaborationwith other sovereign states, to reorganize the financialsystem to ensure the protection of the General Welfare.Thus, the modern nation-state, in this form, is the great-est enemy of the attempt to create a new empire.

We have, therefore, the significance of what is hap-pening in Asia, which has two chief dimensions: On theone hand, we have, with the developments around Presi-dent Putin of Russia, as with Prime Minister Primakovbefore him, a tendency to bring the nations of Asia, andEurope, into contiguity. The second problem, which isposed by that, is: We have two basic cultures on this plan-et. We have, not Western civilization, but European civi-lization. By European civilization, I mean somethingwhich began in Egypt, which developed in Greecearound figures like Solon and Plato, and which became anew European culture through the apostolic mission ofJohn and Paul.

8

Since the attacks on the World Trade Center and thePentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, a fierce debate has

erupted over whether or not a “Clash of Civilizations”between various combinations of Western nations andthe Islamic world and/or China (“Confucian civiliza-tion”) is inevitable, and, indeed, on our doorsteps. Thereality is, that, while the world is closer now to a new,global Thirty Years’ War than at any time in memory,the reason for this danger is not some inevitable clashbetween the underlying cultural and theological princi-ples of Islam and Christianity.

Instead, the reason is, that factions of the internationalfinancial oligarchy, principally headquartered in theEnglish-speaking world, are desperate to start a new warin Eurasia, to block the potential for a revival of theNineteenth-century American System idea of fosteringthe development of sovereign nation-states across thelargest landmass on the planet, the area stretching fromthe Atlantic shores of England, France, and Scandinavia,to the Pacific coast of Japan, the Korean peninsula andChina—in other words, the Eurasian Land-Bridge pro-gram of development corridors conceived by LyndonLaRouche. They are driven to this level of desperation bythe looming final collapse of the present global financialand monetary system, a system on which their powerdepends. Their strategy is the same old British and other

imperial geopolitical claptrap that helped foment WorldWars I and II. The geopoliticians of those wars hadnames like Halford Mackinder and Karl Haushofer.

In furtherance of this war drive, a modern-day col-lection of quack academics and geopoliticians have beentrotted out to peddle various theories about theinevitability of a war between “the West and the Rest”in the aftermath of the Cold War. While the TrilateralCommission’s Samuel Huntington has been most fre-quently cited as the “author” of the “Clash of Civiliza-tions,” through an infamous 1993 article by that samename in the Council on Foreign Relations’ ForeignAffairs magazine, it was, in fact, the 85-year-old BritishOrientalist and wartime British intelligence official,Bernard Lewis, who first coined the phrase in a 1990article in Atlantic Monthly. For more than 60 years,Lewis has been a leading proponent of a new civiliza-tional clash between Islam and the West, as a means ofdestroying any prospects of economic and politicaladvancement in the Arab and Muslim world.

In 1998, it was Lewis who first promoted Osama binLaden, as the prophet of the “new militant Islam,”translating one of Bin Laden’s “fatwas” against Israeland the United States in Foreign Affairs, and praisingthe Saudi expatriate as a brilliant Islamic scholar andpoet (!). Ironically, at the same time, Lewis was adding

Behind the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ Hoax

The Basis for a Dialogue of CulturesNow this culture, European culture, is based on a con-ception of man in the image of God, which is the basis ofthe notion of General Welfare in law. This includes theReform form of Judaism, as typified by MosesMendelssohn. It is also an influence on Islam; it is the ori-gin of Islam. But when we go to South Asia, and EastAsia, we find a different culture. The idea of the concep-tion of man as in the likeness of God, does not prevail as acultural standard in these cultures. You have an approxi-mation of this in the influence of Islam. . . . Certainaspects of Hinduism are not entirely hostile to this. Nor isthe Confucian tradition in China hostile to it. But, whenyou deal with Asia, you do not have an acceptance of themost fundamental, and most precious principles of Euro-pean culture.

So, on the one level, it is not difficult for us toapproach China, Japan, India, and so forth, and say, “Wewant respect for the perfect sovereignty of nation-states.”But when you say, What does that mean?, you come to

the conception of culture, the conception of man. In thatcase, if you try to approach it one way, you end up withan impossible, and a self-defeating policy. If you say,we’re going to respect the opinion of other cultures, youcreate an order which is like the Roman pagan Pantheon,and we see in the plan for a Clash of Civilizations, pre-cisely how that works.

We have in the history of civilization, in ancient Baby-lon, for example, to the present, all empires were basedon the principle of the Pantheon. And the way that theemperor ruled the empire, was to play the different reli-gions of the Pantheon against each other. What ZbigniewBrzezinski is proposing, is exactly that: a war among cul-tures, to define the planet as a Pantheon, and to makewar among the different religions and cultures of thePantheon. That is the Islamic “Clash of Civilizations”thesis of Brzezinski.

So that, from the standpoint of our Christian tradition,you can’t approach this from a standpoint of doctrine. Youmust approach it from a missionary standpoint, from anapostolic standpoint, not a doctrinal standpoint. Ratherthan saying, What are the differences between us?, youhave to say, What is the agreement among us? It means,there has to be, as President Khatami of Iran has pro-posed, there has to be a discussion of the agreement on anidea, a certain idea of man. And there must be a discus-sion, with agreement to the idea of man, but a continuingdiscussion of what that means.

You can never unify people, except around a commonprinciple. You can never unify people around a Pan-theon. We see this in Babylon, we see this in the delphiccult of the satanic Apollo, we see it in pagan Rome, andso forth. You see it in the doom of Byzantium, whichdoomed itself in the same way the Roman Empiredoomed itself, by trying to organize civilization around aPantheon. There must be a conception of man. We must dothat. So, this is our problem.

The Coup PlotNow, the enemy is well aware of this. So now the crisis iscoming on, the financial crisis. Nothing can stop the col-lapse of the system, in the system’s present form. Anyattempt to perpetuate the system will only make thingsworse. Forget the financial markets, they’re doomed any-way. What the financial market does this month, or nextmonth, or the month after that, is totally unimportant.

The world economy, including the U.S., is goingthrough a hyperinflationary, monetary-financial expan-sion, and a deflationary economic collapse. And the peo-ple who had planned this coup d’état against the UnitedStates, have accepted that.

Now, we don’t know who the coup plotters are. What

9

his name to a list of prominent neo-conservatives whowere demanding that President Clinton bomb Iraqand Saddam Hussein back to the Stone Age.

Today, Lewis, Huntington, and their colleagueZbigniew Brzezinski are among the most vocal war-hawks, attempting to provoke a hideous new religiouswar that would engulf all of Eurasia, and bury theprospects of peace and prosperity for decades, if notcenturies. Whereas Samuel Huntington and BernardLewis might not be exactly household words, mostAmericans are familiar with the former CarterAdministration National Security Advisor, ZbigniewBrzezinski. Under Lewis’ tutelage, Brzezinski imple-mented the “Arc of Crisis” strategy, which sought tocreate a zone of radical Islamic insurgency targettedalong the southern tier of the former Soviet Union.Brzezinski’s promotion of the Afghansi mujahideen todrive the Red Army out of Afghanistan between 1979-1990, created two generations of well-trained andalmost hopelessly brainwashed irregular warfare oper-atives, now associated with Osama Bin Laden and theterrorist “blowback” of September 11. Yet, madgeopolitician Brzezinski defends his execution of the“Bernard Lewis Plan” to this day, as one of the great-est geopolitical “chess moves” ever executed.

—Jeffrey Steinberg

we know is, the fact is, that there are certain technical fea-tures of the attack that occurred on September 11, thatcould not have been done by anybody outside the UnitedStates. This had exactly the form of a military coup d’état.Anyone who has studied coups d’état, of that type, knowsexactly that, by looking at the facts. Every state has certainsecurity provisions against coups d’état. These are more orless efficient, when used. Even if the coup might work, itprobably will be caught, and be aborted. The plotters mustbe assured that either the security measures are not func-tioning, or that they are able to shut them down.

Now, this kind of knowledge does not exist so muchin police departments; it exists largely in intelligence ser-vices, and military services. And always, when a coup ismade, it’s made because the people who are making thecoup, are a minority in that interest. If they were themajority power, they would simply take power. So a coupd’état is a method of taking power by cheating.

Now, for example, you may start a fire in a theater,and the people will panic in response to the fire, and thenyou’ll be able to do certain things, in consequence of afew people having panicked many. That’s a simple expla-nation of the way a coup d’état works.

What they did is, they set fire to the buildings in Low-er Manhattan, and the Pentagon, attacking personnel.There were tens of thousands of people in those build-ings, of whom maybe 6,000 were killed. They aimed atthe Pentagon. If they’d gone just a few feet higher, andwhen they came in to the attack on the Pentagon, theywould have taken out the Joint Chiefs of Staff. All thesecurity arrangements which should have been function-ing, to prevent this from working, were down. Themaneuvers were highly sophisticated. No Arab govern-ment, no Arab terrorist organization, could by any meanshave done it. It could have only been done from insidethe United States command.

Now, there could have been foreign accomplices, butthis is the crucial question.

Now, what does this imply? This means, on the onehand, we know from the character of the act, it was acoup attempt. What else do we know? What was thepurpose of the attack? The purpose of the attack was, getthe United States into a Clash of Civilizations war. Now,we know who has this policy. There are three placeswhere this policy exists: the military command of Israel;the Blair government of England; and a lot of financiercircles in the United States, typified by Henry Kissinger,Brzezinski, and so forth—many others. There are peopleinside the U.S. government who share that view. Wol-fowitz, the Assistant Secretary of Defense. Armitage, thenumber two at the State Department. Similar people.Ashcroft is obviously part of this thing. Does that meanthese people did it? Not necessarily.

In a coup d’état, what you have is, you have a largeagreement among some people on a policy. Then some peo-ple, who have this agreement, now say, “We are going tomake it happen.” So that inside the administration of pow-er, you have Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, who also has a uniform,or has an official position, and he has a double position: oneas a member of the authority, the establishment; another asa member of the coup plot. It’s a true conspiracy—a trueconspiracy. They exist, contrary to mythologies. Conspira-cies actually exist. Some are silly, some are dangerous.

So, therefore, what we’ve seen, is, you have a groupwhich tried to set fire to the United States, to push theUnited States into supporting Israel, under its presentcommand, in launching general war against the Arabworld, to the purpose of geopolitics, to destroy theattempt at cooperation between Europe and Asia. So, wedon’t know who the perpetrators are, but we have seenthat the present government of Israel, the Prime Ministerof England, the United Kingdom, Blair, and others arebehind this operation, this policy. It was Blair whopushed through NATO this Article 5 agreement, whichotherwise had been resisted. So the push was to black-mail and terrify the President and others in the UnitedStates government, into bombing Afghanistan, which issilly. Supported by a lot of the U.S.-controlled massmedia, which have been trying to panic the people intothis state of hysteria, about going against, killing all thepeople who are Arabs, or something.

So that’s the situation. And it becomes clear when thefight between Bush and Blair breaks out, as it did the lasttwo days. When Bush says, “We must have a Palestinianstate established,” Blair says, “No,” Sharon says, “No,”and the Israeli military command says, “We’ll kill.” Nowthe character of the coup comes out into the open.

How Do We Deal with This Crisis?Now, how do we react to this? Do you have to go in andfind the people who planned the coup? That is thewrong way to go at it. While you’re chasing them, you’llnot be dealing with the problem. The point is, how doyou defeat the purpose of the coup? Well, if the peoplewill not accept the result of a coup, then it won’t work. Acoup d’état depends upon the predisposition of the peopleto accept the fait accompli.

So, how do you establish the rule of law? You have totake measures which address directly the problem,which is, to use the principle of the nation-state, to bringabout cooperation in Asia, Eurasia, around the basic eco-nomic and related problems, and get cooperation fromthe United States and others to support that. If thenations of Eurasia say, “We will not tolerate this,” it willnot happen.

10

11

My concern is to try to get the United States to say, “Itwon’t happen.” And if that occurs, if that won’t work,then what has to be done is to address the real problem,which is the financial, monetary crisis, which is what Ipropose, and others have proposed, as a New BrettonWoods approach. Or, the idea of the Eurasian Land-Bridge is a very specific way of creating an economic pol-icy, which supports the idea of a New Bretton Woods. It’sobvious, it’s very obviously needed. Europe, WesternEurope, can not survive economically under present con-ditions. Unless Europe can again export, open up itsexports, for technology products, especially into Asia, itcan not survive.

In order to do that, means that we have to reach agree-ments on economic development in Eurasia, and then weface the problem of how do we transform a perception onthe part of Japan, of China, of India, of Southeast Asia,how do we have an understanding on their part, as wellas ours, of how we are going to work together? Whatprinciples, what ideas are we going to have, which arepositive ideas of cooperation, not just trade? We mustthen have a conception of the issue of man. We musthave a dialogue of cultures, but a dialogue not within aPantheon, but a dialogue of cultures on the subject of thenature of man. A minimal objective should be to establishthe same principle which was set forth by Cusa in Con-cordantia catholica, and was also articulated by Secretaryof State John Quincy Adams of the United States, a com-munity of sovereign nation-states, a community of princi-ple. The principle is rooted in the nature of man. Theprinciple is, the common good, the General Welfare. So

you must have enough agreement among Christians, var-ious Chinese currents, Japanese currents, Indian currents,and so forth, an agreement on principle to the nature ofman, insofar as it enables us to define agreement to thecommon good, the General Welfare.

Ordinary treaty law, positive law, will not work tosuch purpose. It must be very simple law. The notion ofthe General Welfare, of the common good, that whenev-er there’s a crisis, the decision has to be, the deliberationmust be: What is the General Welfare? What is the com-mon good? Because we must put this planet back togeth-er again. For as long as we know, human beings in largegroups have been killing each other. There are those inthe empiricist tradition, who say that will go on forever.

I think, contrary to Bertrand Russell, actually, thatwith the development of nuclear weapons, we reachedthe point that we should recognize that warfare has alimit. How do we reach this limit of warfare? We recog-nize that the solution does not lie in creating a Pantheon,as Bertrand Russell and company suggested; not turningthe human race into a zoo, but by finding a commonprinciple of law, true common principle. A law which ismade clear to us by nature itself: the nature of man.

Man is a cognitive being, with the power to make dis-coveries of principles, which no animal can do; to trans-form nature, and to transform man’s relationship tonature. The communication of these concepts of discov-eries, which are discoveries in the arts as well as physicalscience, within a population, and from generation to gen-eration, this should be the law. And that, I think, is theonly hope. We must work, we must understand, there’s a

Primary and secondary routes of the Eurasian Land-Bridge. Transportation lines form the basis foreconomic development corridors.

Eurasian Land-Bridge routes

Planned or proposed main routes

Existing other lines

Other planned or proposed lines

How do youestablish the rule oflaw? You have touse the principle ofthe nation-state, tobring aboutcooperation inEurasia around thebasic economicproblems, and getcooperation fromthe United Statesand others tosupport that.E

IRN

S

12

Senator Orlando: Thank you very much for your inter-vention. Senator Folloni would like to speak now.

Sen. Gian Guido Folloni: You have given us a verystimulating view of the recent events, and I have somequestions. The first is about what you called the secondmodel regarding the cultural conception and idea ofman.

Do you think that this model, which you indicated inthe Oriental philosophies, rather than in the Orientalreligions, has a strong presence inside Western culture,and in particular within the Protestant world?

The second question: What will be the attitude of theU.S.A. and the Bush Administration, which are con-scious of this attempted coup, toward that which youcalled Eurasia? I ask this, because what you explainedabout the theses of Brzezinski is a debate which exists inthe United States, and Brzezinski himself has promotedit in his books; the consequence of this debate has been aresistance in the U.S.A. to development in the Eurasiancontinent, and to strong collaboration between the Euro-pean Union and the strongest Asian nations. Is there anew attitude in the American administration, or inAmerican public opinion, regarding the role whichEurope and Eurasia can play in a new phase of interna-tional relations?

A final question, regarding how you think it possibleto create this dialogue about the idea of man. It seemed tome that this was in the intentions of John Paul II whenhe wanted to go to Ur, a place which represents a synthe-sis of the three monotheistic religions. But my question is,how to start this dialogue with nations such as China,which have a philosophy which is very different. Whydidn’t you speak of China in your final considerations?You spoke of Latin America and Africa. Is China toremain outside, or can it be involved in this dialogue?LaRouche: China is part of Asia, it’s part of this Eurasiabusiness. It’s a key part. It’s the most challenging part ofthe whole business, the most important part.

Orlando: I suggest that we hear several interventionsbefore hearing the response.

I would like to say something about what has been saidhere. There are two aspects which very much convinceme. The first is that the Pantheon is the negation of unity . . . which honors neither religions nor the dialogue amongreligions. The idea of man as an end, not of a dialogue butof a new principle, goes together with a cultural traditionwhich begins with Greece and passes through RomanLaw. It was good to cite Cusa, but if we look before him,in Roman law there is “Id quod naturalis ratio inter omneshomines constituit” [“Natural reason is common to allmen”], and then after Cusa, the natural-law concept basedon the defense of the natural rights of man.LaRouche: As for Cicero, for example.Orlando: Cicero, certainly; but also Seneca. I would liketo say though, that after Cusa, Alberigo Gentili and oth-ers of the natural-law current exalted the function ofman, the nature of man, the defense of the nature of man;naturally, though, all of this is part of European culture.

But, I find myself agreeing with what you said aboutAsia, if we correctly judge the events which are takingplace. I went to China when the kids were protesting andyelling “Down with Confucius,” because this was theOrder of the Gang of Four and of the Cultural Revolu-tion. Now, it gave me great pleasure to see the revival ofthe Confucian studies departments in the universities inChina, both in Shanghai, where I attended a class, and inBeijing and other places in China. I also heard thespeeches of the Dalai Lama, who emphasizes man andthe rights of man. So, I want to say that, yes, there can bean impetus, but, as my friend and colleague Folloni saidvery well, how can all of this find a channel which helpsto at least pose this question as the main problem?

On the principles, I think we won’t find dissent.Among other things, it was good that Folloni mentionedthe preaching of the current Pope, but I would also liketo cite John XXIII and also Paul VI. The Popes of theserecent decades have always exalted the function of man

Dialogue with LaRouche

limit to warfare. Modern society has reached the pointthat warfare, in any case, can be made so terrible that it’sunfightable. So, we must have the kind of thinking thatis appropriate to that reality.

So we come to a point in history, at which there’s anattempt to plunge all humanity into a Dark Age; andthat’s what would happen if Brzezinski’s ideas prevailed.We must enter into the kind of dialogue of cultures I’ve

indicated, around the practical question of bringingtogether the nations of Eurasia for cooperation in dealingwith this crisis. And we must involve Africa and theAmericas in that process. If we succeed, we shall haveprobably accomplished the greatest thing in all politicalhistory. We may have begun the adulthood of the humanrace.

So, that, in capsule, is my view.

and the rights of man, and they have always polemicizedagainst the consumerist and hedonistic structure of con-temporary societies. Therefore, I agree with these twoprinciples; the battle against the Pantheon and the sup-port of man with all of his rights. Homo sive natura [manin his natural state], at times the pantheists of the MiddleAges said; it is a paradox from the Catholic point of view,but it expresses the idea well.

Where I’m a bit more skeptical is, on the economicproblem; that is, the destruction of the market economy;if this means the market economy as it is configuredtoday, before and after these events, phenomena of grow-ing recession in various parts of Europe and the world.But I think that the path taken by Bretton Woods is stillpracticable. We must remember that the final approachof Bretton Woods was the unity of a trading currency.The problem of exchange rates, the problem of using thedollar as the basic currency for trade, are things whichcame later. The Special Drawing Rights, which couldhave meant, in a certain sense, overcoming the Anglo-American monetary domination, but never made it offthe ground. So, I want to say that it is important not toforget certain lessons from the recent past, in order tochange a situation as difficult as that in which we findourselves.

Eurasia: Eurasia is one of our goals. Our Institute wasfounded based on the collaboration between Asia andEurope. Italy has had and has an important role, includ-ing in dissent with the United States itself; just look atwhat we as an institute have done to break the isolationof Iraq, look at the evolution that is taking place insideIran, one of the most important countries. Among otherthings, this oil alliance, which threatens to subordinatethe politics of the United States to certain Arab countrieswhich still maintain slavery, tolerate slavery, and ignorenations such as Iran, with a very ancient civilization.Iran is a democratic country. Where are the Parliamentsin Saudi Arabia, or in Kuwait, or in the United ArabEmirates?

I would ask you to pass over the things I have said,and answer the questions put by Senator Folloni, as tohow we can join our efforts to arrive, in the name of thecelebration of man and against the Pantheon, at thisEurasian cooperation, in which also the Americas andAfrica will eventually join.

What Is the Difference Between Man and Beast?LaRouche: Let’s take the first question from SenatorFolloni. The question is, were there things, like thedegeneration of morality in Europe today, experienced

earlier in Asian cultures?The history of man, the prehistory of man, is even as

interesting as its history. But the essential thing aboutman is—which is a question which is very seldomaddressed today in politics, or in theology also—is thequestion of, what is the difference, from a scientificstandpoint, what is the difference between man and ananimal? For example, how do I tell the differencebetween a baboon and Henry Kissinger? (which is a realchallenge). The point is, what does man do functionally,what is there about man’s nature, which is different thanthat of any animal? Not as a doctrinal question, as a sci-entific question.

Now, we have a very interesting Russian scientist, whohas something to say about these things. He’s not aliveany more, except he speaks to me: Vernadsky, VladimirVernadsky. Now, Vernadsky correctly defined the physi-cal universe as of three different components, distinct

13

POPE JOHN PAUL II:

‘Ward Off the Dread Specterof Wars of Religion’

Addressing the participants of the PontificalCouncil for Interreligious Dialogue on Nov. 9,

2001, who were meeting in the Vatican on “TheSpirituality of Dialogue,” the Pope noted that,“Your assembly is reflecting on the progress ofinterreligious dialogue at a time when the whole ofhumanity is still in shock from the events of lastSeptember 11. It has been suggested that we arewitnessing a veritable clash of religions. But, as Ihave already said on numerous occasions, thiswould be to falsify religion itself.”

The Pope quoted from his Apostolic Letter,“Novo Millennio Ineunte”: “In the climate ofincreased cultural pluralism that is expected tomark the society of the new millennium, it isobvious that interreligious dialogue will beespecially important in establishing a sure basis forpeace and warding off the dread specter of thosewars of religion which have so often bloodiedhistory.”

A true spirituality of dialogue provides themotivation for persevering when misunderstand-ings arise and prejudice can stand in the way ofcommon accord, the Pope said. “Dialogue is notalways easy or without suffering.”

components. . . . And, as Pasteur and others demon-strated, and as Vernadsky demonstrated in a differentway, the living processes have effects on non-livingprocesses, which never occur in non-living processes.Therefore, the principle of life is both universal, and it’sindependent of the principles of so-called physics, as gen-erally taught today.

In the living universe, the cognitive processes of manhave an effect on both living and non-living processes, inthe same way that life affects non-living processes. Noanimal can do it. So the demonstration is, the continuity,the impact of the cognitive processes, is not shown merelyin the individual discovery. And this is where Vernadskymisses the point. It is that the issue is not individual, it’ssocial. The individual, by making a discovery, and shar-ing the act of discovery, with other persons, causes theprocess of transmission of human knowledge from gen-eration to generation.

Man changes the universe by the existence of this pow-er of cognition.

Now, the problem then is, in history, from what weknow, we have evidence going back hundreds of thou-sands of years of actual discoveries by man. We can tellthe difference between an ape and a man, if we can findsome of the work of the man. For example, you discovercertain tools, in a site with human remains. That wasdone by man, not a monkey. So by looking at the formalfeatures of a relic, you can’t tell the difference between aman and an ape. Only by looking at the work can youfind the difference.

Two Opposing Cultural TendenciesSo, you say, “Why isn’t this the basis of human relations?Why is our education teaching people to learn something,rather than discover it?” This is a big question. I shall notattempt to do here what I’ve done in many writings. Butthe point is this: The problem of mankind, as we know it,prior to the Fifteenth century, when for the first time, theidea of a principle of man was made law, is that man, allsocieties, have treated mankind as divided between threegroups: top group—oligarchy; second group—lackeys ofthe oligarchy; third group—human cattle, wild cattle andcaptured cattle.

For example, you look at the Code of Diocletian. TheDiocletian Code prescribes that the average person in soci-ety shall do what his father did before him. We find, insociety today, an educational system; we say, we do notbelieve in the general education of people; children shouldbe educated for their destiny, as employees. We get this inChina, in Legalism; as opposed to Confucianism, which isthe opposite. You find, even in Hinduism, you find divi-sion between two views on this question of education.

In the case of the United States, you have a patriotictendency, which I represent, and you have my opponents,who represent an anti-patriotic tendency. Such as, theBush family are not patriotic. They represent an oli-garchical tendency, a financier-oligarchical tendency,which does not maintain health care, which does notmaintain education, cognitive education; which does notpromote the General Welfare. Why? Because they say,most people are destined; we must have an orderly soci-ety based on our principles. And they have lackeys, whoadminister the society, so that, essentially, we treat themas slaves. You say, where does this come from?

We have a treasonous tendency in the United States,that is, treason against the conception of its founding.One is a financial interest, a rentier-financier interest,which is based in the Northeast, or was, traditionally: theBank of Manhattan, for example, founded by AaronBurr, a traitor. The New England opium traders, and theSouthern slaveholders. To understand the history of theUnited States, you have to see the struggle between thetwo forces, the patriotic forces, and these, what are calledthe American Tory forces. Lincoln is the best example ofthe patriotic forces, as is Franklin Roosevelt, for example.John Kennedy intended to become that.

But you have the other side, you have the ascendancyof Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge,Nixon, and so forth. And this group— What happenedin 1966-68, is that Nixon led the revival of the AmericanTory, pro-slavery tradition. And this has been the greatstruggle in European history, between what kind of soci-ety should we have: a society based on developing theindividual around the mind; or maintaining the old oli-garchical system, in which you degrade the majority ofmembers of society to the conditions of animal-likehuman cattle?

So, what we know of mankind in general, is paradoxi-cal. We have evidence, prehistorical as well as historical,of showing great efforts, and great accomplishments,within societies. But a predominant tendency, whichalways leads into the destruction of societies, which isagainst that.

Like, for example, the case of the crash of Rome.Rome died about the time that Scipio came back fromAfrica. The end of the second Punic War. What hap-pened is, you had the returning soldiers, or the knights,came back, and became a wealthy financier, latifundiaclass, which destroyed Italy from the inside, and degrad-ed the Roman population to “bread and circuses.” So youhad a brutalized, degenerate culture, Roman culture,from that time on.

So, then you had again the Byzantine culture, whichrepeated the same thing on a higher population base. Youhave ancient Babylon—the same thing.

14

So, you have a history of cultures which destroy them-selves. Sometimes it takes two generations, sometimes ittakes twenty generations. Dynastic systems that destroythemselves, like the present dynastic system which isdestroying itself.

In Western Europe, in the United States, the Americ-as, from 1945 to 1966, there was general progress. That is,there was an improvement in the condition of life for theaverage person, in post-war rebuilding. From 1966 to1976, there was a change in the opposite direction. Since1971, European civilization has been doomed as a system,like the Roman Empire before it, by its own internal rot.Most of the people today, living, except a few of us, didnot live through the Second World War. We do not knowwhat the kinds of decisions are, that you make in times ofgreat life-and-death issues. We have generations that don’tknow what reality is. They don’t know that you come toa time in life, when you as a person, have to make a deci-sion about life or death, based on what you think societyrequires of you.

So we have a society of fools! We turned our childreninto fools. Because they believe you can manage every-thing, you can talk your way out of everything. We have

the empire of theSophists: you can talkyour way out of any-thing.

So that, yes, whathappened, the differ-ence is that in the caseof European civiliza-tion, or Christian civi-lization, if you look atit as a system, from thetime of Solon and Pla-to, you see a long waveof European civiliza-tion which is movinggenerally upward,with many setbacks,but always persisting,always persisting,moving upward, up tothis time. For the firsttime in all existence inEuropean civilization,in 2,600 years, for thefirst time, Europeancivilization’s extinc-tion has now become apossibility! A DarkAge for all humanity.

You look at the his-tory of non-European civilizations, cultures—they’ve gonethrough this many times. Because never did they achievewhat we achieved, in this conception. And we know howwe achieved it. We achieved it through two things. Proba-bly through a gift of Egypt, in the sense of this image ofAthena, from the Egyptian image of Athene, into Greekculture. But around Solon, and around Plato, typically,there developed in Greece something which was crushed.And then this was rescued, by the apostolic mission, espe-cially of John and Paul. This rescue, this Greek culture,made it the basis of a Christian culture, and this is whatmade European civilization possible.

If you look back to the period of Europe prior to theFifteenth-century Renaissance, that, relative to the rest ofthe world, Europe was Europe, but it was not that well-developed, relative to the rest of the world. The greatpower of European civilization began in Italy in the Fif-teenth century. Some people would say at Padua, withcertain professors. But this—and only the creation of theidea of the modern nation-state, as an idea, the idea of theGeneral Welfare, of the common good, enabled Europeancivilization to defend its most precious characteristic.

Since that time, we have had a constant struggle with-

15

In the case ofEuropean civiliza-

tion, from the timeof Solon and Plato,

you see a long wavewhich is moving

generally upward,with many setbacks,

but alwayspersisting, movingupward, up to this

time. For the firsttime in all existence

in European civilization, in 2,600

years, Europeancivilization’s

extinction has nowbecome a

possibility!

400

B.C

.

02468

10 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

200

A.D

.1

200

400

600

800

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500 50

1600 50 50

1800 50

1700

1900 50Paleolithic Mesolithic Neolithic

Pop. ~100,000

Pop.~250,000

100,000–10,000 B.C.

10,000–5,000 B.C. 40

00

3000

2000

1000

5000

120

0

Population(Millions)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Population-density(Avg pop/km2)

1975

1

2

3Paleolithic Mesolithic Neolithic

10203040506070

Life-expectancy(Years)

The long-wave, upward motion of Europeancivilization, as shown by the growth of

European population, population-density,and life-expectancy at birth,

400 B.C.–A.D. 1975.

in European civilization, between forces which are forthe common good, and those which are oligarchs, whoare trying to suppress it. And the problem is, that ourpeople are so poorly educated, that many people will sim-ply say: “Well, I have to think about my family, and mycommunity, and I have to make compromises for the suc-cess of my family and community.” And, therefore, theybetray civilization, by making compromises which aremorally rotten, against the common good.

‘The End of Compromise, Or the End of Man’We come to a time, now, when all this foolishness mustend. We must recognize that mankind is faced with anexistential crisis of civilization. There’s no possibility ofcompromising your way out of this one. The end of com-promise, or the end of man.

That you have the problem—as is seen by the case ofJohn Paul II. He’s a man who’s in very terrible condition,but who has taken up the cause, and I think not acciden-tally, by any means, but taken up the cause of an ecu-menical, apostolic approach to world crisis—then you seethose who turn against him. It’s obvious, from my stand-point, that that is the only way we can save humanity,from a terrible time. What he did in Greece, what he didin Russia, what he did in respect to Ukraine, what he didin Kazakhstan, what he did in Syria—this is exactly whatwe need! We need an apostolic approach to the sense ofthe common good.

I would say that, of this situation, Asian cultures wentthrough this, and lost. European civilization, in its Chris-tian form, has managed to withstand that, despite all evilsup to now. But what I know of European civilizationtoday, and its condition, I would say that is so morallybad, generally, that only a great crisis, which terrifies it,will teach it to find its own nature again.

So, in general, you have the following problem. Youhave only three national cultures on this planet today,which are capable of thinking, of proposing, initiatingglobal solutions for global problems. One is the Britishmonarchy, which has not introduced anything good.Another is Russian culture. Another is the United States,which is very brutalized, but not defeated. Then youhave European nations which have been conquered andoccupied so many times, they no longer have the sensethey have the authority to initiate global solutions.

So the problem is, as a practical problem: How do wemobilize forces, including Russia, including what Russi-a’s trying to do with Asia, with cooperation in Eurasia, tobring the nations of Western Europe, in particular, andPoland, and Hungary, and Slovakia, and so forth—bringthem into the dialogue on the future of mankind, so that

they become again individual, sovereign voices in theprocess of discussion?

This is not only a matter of permission to participate;without bringing in the factor of continental Europeanculture, you will not get a good decision from even anagreement between the United States and Russia.

You see this in Italy, in the question of the BrettonWoods issue. You have, despite Italy’s lack of power overEuropean decisions, you find a higher intellectual andmoral quality, of opinion, among Italian political leaders,than you do in any other nation in Europe. So, if we donot bring the best of these European nations’ voices intothe dialogue, the dialogue will fail. And I would hope toinspire people in Europe to think like that.

The question of the European national identity: theItalian national identity in the world at this time.Maybe the French can find an identity too. I kept rec-ommending François Rabelais to them, to have a senseof humor about France. And Germany, Helga [ZeppLaRouche] has some ancient sources we hope to revivethere too.

The Brzezinski thing, just finally: The Brzezinskithing—it’s not Brzezinski’s influence. If you know him,as we know him, he’s an idiot. He’s a mental case. He isalso a member of a kind of satanic circle, despite whatsome people think about him. Brzezinski was the son of aPolish bureaucrat, of the state bureaucracy. He went toCanada from Poland, and became a nonentity in Canada.The son went to McGill University, where he was anonentity. He was then recruited to Harvard University,by one of the most evil men in Twentieth-century U.S.history: You had a professor, William Yandell Elliott.Elliott was one of the key members of what was calledthe Nashville Agrarians, which was a pro-Confederacymemorial association, racist evil, and associated withH.G. Wells, and his philosophy. These were all peoplewho were members of the families that founded the KuKlux Klan. This is the hard core of the Southern crazyreligious fanatics. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, thesetypes, are all products of this movement.

Two people came out of Harvard who are mostnotable, who were trained and promoted by Elliott. Onewas Brzezinski, the other was Henry Kissinger.Madeleine Albright came out of the same background—didn’t go to Harvard, but came out of the same back-ground. Her father was Josef Korbel. They’re very closeto Brzezinski. Brzezinski married the daughter ofEduard Benes and so forth, so it’s all one tight circle.Brzezinski was the person who organized the TrilateralCommission, who got David Rockefeller to put moneyinto it. He chose Jimmy Carter to become President. Hewent, through intermediation, to Islamic Jihad, whichwas then in Egypt, to organize what became the Afghan-

16

si, which became the Afghanistan war, and then became,eventually, the Taliban.

So, these people are purely evil, this whole circle. But,the important thing is, these are people, like Kissinger,who are typified—remember, both were, Kissinger wasSecretary of State, National Security Adviser for Nixon;Brzezinski was National Security Adviser and controllerfor Carter. Twelve years of disaster. So, these people rep-resent a certain faction, inside the U.S. Establishment andthe British Establishment, and that’s all they represent.They are not independent forces; they are lackeys.

So this is just a symptom of evil. This is like theVoltaires or the Talleyrands of modern politics.

The Nature of Religious WarsHon. Tullio Grimaldi: I would like to ask a questionwhich touches on political questions, rather than ontolog-ical or philosophical questions. You spoke about a coupd’état, attempted or successful, maybe more attempted

than successful, a coup which had the aim of provoking asort of religious war, a contest between the Western andIslamic worlds. The reality is, that this is, in a certainsense, taking place, because after the war into whichAmerica has been dragged with the attack onAfghanistan, there is a spread of Islamic fundamentalismbeyond what there was before. A new order is shapingup globally because Europe is being kept out, except forthe U.K., which has always been a close ally of the U.S.A.There’s an instability in the Eastern chessboard betweenPakistan and India, with Kashmir, a powderkeg whichcould lead to a possible war. There is also a destabiliza-tion of the relations between Saudi Arabia and the Unit-ed States, relations which were very close. There is a dif-ferent problem with Israel in the Middle East. All of thisis creating a new order.

My question is this: Was there a mind which plannedall of this, the massacre of the Twin Towers and theattack on the Pentagon, etc.?LaRouche: Yes, sure.

17

Iranian President Seyyed Mohammad Khatamirenewed his call for a Dialogue of Civilizations at

the United Nations General Assembly on Nov. 10,2001, following a two-day event on the “Dialogue ofCivilizations” at which he was the guest of honor.

Speaking to the U.N. General Assembly, PresidentKhatami asked people to look more deeply into thecauses of the terrorism, in order to find the solution toits appearance: “Terrorism cannot be attributed to anyreligion or nationality; nor can it be eradicated throughrage and violence. When spirituality, ethics, and fair-ness find no room in the realm of politics, economy,and culture, and when discrimination, marginaliza-tion, exclusion and application of double standardspush justice aside, the world is bound to face alien-ation, despair, extremism and lawlessness. And in sucha climate, terrorism find a fertile ground for growth.

“The disaster in the United States is so tragic andgrave that it implores all thinkers to engage in deepreflection and dialogue on its real causes. The powerfulfind the answer in recourse to military revenge, since itcalms their anger and that of their compatriots. In thismidst, the fact that the first victims of such retributionare defenseless people who have themselves been vic-tims of terrorism and discrimination is often ignored,”he said.

President Khatami renewed his call for a dialogueof the intellectuals from different cultures: “Time isripe for human society to critique the history and con-sequences of approaches based on exclusion, and to ini-tiate ways and means to engage intellectuals from dif-ferent cultures and encourage the public to embarkupon learning for dialogue, and dialogue for learning,and identifying the art of listening as a sacred andinvaluable art.

“The right of the oppressed human being shouldbe defended and the horrible discrimination, whichthreatens all, should be countered. . . . We shall rise tothe challenge of distributing peace, security anddevelopment among all nations on the basis of justiceand come to believe that in today’s interconnectedworld, we cannot live in islands of prosperity andprogress while the rest of the world is increasinglycaught in poverty, illiteracy, disease and insecurity.The more we can distance our world’s materialprogress from coercion, discrimination and inequality,and draw closer to equality, justice and fairness, themore likely it would be to prevent crisis, violence, andacts of terror. . . .

“Will politicians take this step to prevent a clash ofstates from becoming a clash of civilizations? Thefuture will be the judge.”

IRANIAN PRESIDENT KHATAMI:

‘Will Politicians Take the Step To Prevent a Clash of Civilizations?’

Grimaldi: Did this mind foresee the scenario which isplaying out? And, therefore, how is this new order gov-erned? I don’t much believe in the Pantheon as youdescribed it. It’s possible to govern with a Pantheon wheneveryone stays in his place. When some gods begin tofight amongst themselves. . . . I don’t believe that “reli-gious wars” are actually religious wars; they explode asreligious wars, but they really always have material andeconomic ends. What is it that triggered this war, and dida mind foresee this or not?LaRouche: Well, take it last. First, the religious wars thatwere fought in Europe between 1511 and 1648, were notprompted by religion. They were prompted by certainVenetian interests, and in the last case by Paolo Sarpi,who organized what led to the Thirty Years’ War. Theinteresting thing is, in both cases—remember that thefirst attack came on England, with the operation on thisfoolish Henry VIII. The first modern nation-state wasLouis XI’s France; the first state, constituted on the basisof the General Welfare. The second was Henry VII’sEngland, which ended the Plantagenet councils. Whathappened is, the Venetians then, after 1511, organized todisrupt the unity which existed at that time, among Eng-land, Spain, Italy, France—in a sense—of community,and Germany. And it was done by religious war. Or reli-gious conflicts, orchestrated from Venice, by Zorzi fromVenice, for example, who became the sexual adviser toHenry VIII, by Cardinal Pole, who was a Plantagenet,and so forth.

For example, then you had inside the United States—the so-called fundamentalist movement in the UnitedStates, was always founded as a political tool of theBritish monarchy. The fundamentalists as they exist now,the crazy fundamentalists, including John Ashcroft, theAttorney General, were founded as a religious movementby the Nashville Agrarians. Also, you will find that manyof the Islamic fundamentalist organizations were orga-nized by British intelligence; that’s their origin. In Egypt,and so forth, elsewhere. Many in India, Egypt, and soforth. So, they were organized. They were organized forthis purpose, because the tendency was—this goes backto the Caliphate of Baghdad. In the time of Charle-magne, the Caliphate of Baghdad was the most advancedcivilization in the world, in a period of crisis in Europe. Itwas destroyed, by what? It was essentially destroyed bythe philosophy expressed by al-Ghazali, in his Philosophyof The Destruction. The beginning of this kind of processwas with al-Ghazali, in The Destruction. Which waspolitical, at that time.

So, when you see religious war, religions generally donot lead, religious belief does not generally lead to war. Itmay be a factor in war. However, religious war is the

most horrible form of war that was ever developed,because it goes so deep into the person, that the personwill keep on killing to the end. When Brzezinski, in con-junction with British intelligence, planned this Clash ofCivilizations policy, the intention was to keep a perpetualreligious war, in the center of Asia, in South Asia. Didthe people behind the coup intend this kind of effect?Yes. I’ve watched this for years.

The Eruption of Irregular WarfareWhat has happened is, in the postwar period, with thedevelopment of nuclear weapons, and nuclear weaponspolicy, there came the adoption of a policy of using irreg-ular warfare, as a surrogate for regular warfare in con-flict among states. . . .

So, what you had was a development, particularly inthe 1980’s, when it became consolidated, which wascalled the Israeli method, in which private sources offunds were used to create large armies which wereirregular armies, and weapons trafficking and drugtrafficking became the primary sources of wealth to dothis. Afghanistan, for example, today, is the biggestsource of opium in the world. For example, that’s howthe whole thing is financed. The Pakistani economywould collapse, without opium from Afghanistan. So,this is all planned—this part of it. This is the way theythink.

You have—developed in the military—you have afaction, which is the special-warfare faction. They’recrazy! They do these things. We have developed a com-mand structure, inside NATO, as you saw in the Balka-ns. The Balkans war was totally orchestrated, immedi-ately. They got through Desert Storm, they went andstarted the Balkan wars—generally French and Britishagents who organized it. . . . They intend to keep it goingnow. You have the U.S. Special Forces are running theUCK [Kosovo Liberation Army] as a terrorist organiza-tion against Macedonia. Soon, you will have Italiantroops going into the Balkans with German troops, totake over from the NATO troops, to get killed there, inthis war, which is being run by the British and the Unit-ed States.

There are two other things that answer your questionabout the general nature of the objections. First of all, thisis not the last phase; what you described is not the lastphase of this intended operation. The plan was to putEurope and the United States under dictatorships. Thereare steps in that direction, but they have not yet beenimplemented. Which will take another stage to get to, todo that—like the Hitler dictatorship took about fourstages to get it consolidated. And, think of this as like,

18

analogous to the Hitler dictatorship, the Hitler coup,which was run from London and New York. But, whatthey’ve intended to happen, so far, is what they intendedto have happen. They intended that the American peoplewould be stupid enough to be stampeded into thinkingthat Osama bin Laden is responsible for what happenedin New York. They were not completely successful, butthey were largely successful. With British help, with theBritish government’s help, they managed to stampedeEurope into joining them—that’s why we’re having thebombing now. Blair’s endorsement of this reversed theNATO non-decision, to a decision. That’s why thebombing started. It’s not NATO, but NATO gave thepermission.

But, secondly, on this part: They’re not such smartpeople; they’re desperate people. They represent tremen-dous power, tremendous capability. And they have veryweak opposition. The opposition is numerous, but weakand cowardly. But, they will not get the effects they want.They are unleashing something they can not control. Ifwe don’t stop them, there won’t be any civilization. Becausethey will unleash things that nobody can control.

For example: If this revolt in Pakistan—then, theIndians will put nuclear weapons on top of Pakistannuclear sites. That’s why the Prime Minister of India hasbeen warning about the terrible security situation. Thiscan also be triggered another way, by an intensification of

the Kashmir conflict. The ISI-types inside Pakistan mayrevolt against Musharraf, either directly, or by stirring upthe Kashmir operation.

But, the end objective—remember, that the objectiveof this thing, is two things: is war with Russia, a perpet-ual war with Russia; and the obliteration of China.This is clear enough in the, shall we say, the “MeinKampf” of Zbigniew Brzezinski. And, that’s whatthey’re aimed at! Russia has nuclear weapons. The Chi-nese nuclear weapons don’t mean much. But the Russ-ian arsenal—what remains of it—means a great deal.Are you going to try to destroy Russia? Because, that’sthe next step.

If you get a dictatorship in the United States, the dicta-torship will be based on: China is the long-term enemy,and Russia better not get in our way. The continentalEuropeans will be slaves to the Anglo-Americans.

There’s no possibility of tolerating what is happening,and surviving. We’re in a period of great cowardice,where people will always find excuses to tolerate, to getalong. It’s easier for people of my generation to recognizethis kind of problem. We lived through a generation ofWorld War. We understood that. Unfortunately, the pre-sent generations do not understand that; they do notunderstand it emotionally. You don’t play these kinds ofgames with history!Grimaldi: That is possible, but a war like that of 1940-

19

Aerial reconnaissance photo presented to joint U.S. Senate Foreign Relations/SelectIntelligence Committee hearings on war crimes in the Balkans, August 1995.

Religious war is the mosthorrible form of war thatwas ever developed,because it goes so deepinto the person, that theperson will keep onkilling to the end. WhenBrzezinski, in conjunctionwith British intelligence,planned this ‘Clash ofCivilizations’ policy, theintention was to keep aperpetual religious war, inthe center of Asia, inSouth Asia.

U.S

.Gov

ernm

ent

Pho

to

45 was one of destruction, but not total destruction; anuclear war would allow the survivors to control onlythe ruins, nothing else. A mind which proposes this isabsolutely insane; but this doesn’t seem to be the case tome, rather, a clear mind which wants global dominion,sets the aim of a more immediate dominion, which canbe used to impose a new order, something which mayalready be happening in this immediate phase. Newalliances, new scenarios, a part of the moderate Islamicworld which is absorbed, Europe out of the game . . . adominion of material interests, or multinational corpo-rations. This is more realistic than an insane mindwhich wants to start a nuclear conflict, which would beapocalyptic.LaRouche: They’re actually that crazy!

The Culture of ExistentialismFolloni: I recently re-read a book by an author from theend of the last century, Benson, The Master of the World.This came back to my mind because in this book, whichhas an apocalyptic tone, the world comes to Armaged-don, and Benson uses the term which has reappearedtoday, the “alliance,” an alliance as the new boss of inter-national relations. My question is: You spoke about aPantheon; what relation do you see in the formation ofthis alliance that the U.S.A. is asking the world for, andthe Pantheon as you presented it?LaRouche: Well, the Pantheon, the most dangerous Pan-theon, is the one that’s being formed within Europeancivilization itself. What’s happened to European culture,and religious culture in particular, has undergone a greatdecadence in recent times. This was already raised in theearly Twentieth century by the papacy, in a discussioninvolving Germany, in which the observation was thatthe most dangerous thing in Germany, from the stand-point of the papacy, was the influence of Nietzscheamong German Catholics.

What happened, as we mentioned earlier, in the dis-cussion earlier, in the case of Kant, is, Kant, essentially,was an empiricist of a British, Paolo Sarpi legacy, whointroduced the categories of Aristotle to empiricism,and created a system called his Critiques. These Cri-tiques were based on attacking, basically, Leibniz—theattack on Leibniz by Kant, which denied that there’sknowable truth in the universe, and that everythingwas simply deductive. So that, in Germany, aroundKant developed what was called the New Romanti-cism, of Kant, Fichte, Hegel, and so forth. The denialof the existence of truth. This had the effect withSchopenhauer, Nietzsche, and others, of the revival ofthe so-called existentialist movement.

Now, what happened in the degeneracy of the Twen-tieth century, was largely the outgrowth of things likeNietzscheanism, which included the Frankfurt School inGermany, which included Heidegger, which includedJaspers, which included Adorno, Horkheimer, HannahArendt, Jean Paul Sartre, and so forth. These people cre-ated the new existentialist movement.

Now, if you look in the United States, look in Europe,you will find that existentialism in various forms domi-nates, and has replaced Classical culture generally. Now,this also in religion. So, what happened is, now they say,“There is no truth, there is only opinion.” They say, now,between Catholics and Protestants, and this and that,and so forth, there’s no truth, there’s only opinion. Theysay, “You can have your opinion. That’s your doctrine.But the other person has this opinion, and this doctrine.And this person has this doctrine.” If the churches acceptthat, the churches become part of a pagan Pantheon, asunder the Roman Emperor. Then the possibility of asociety which accepts the Pantheon, can not make amoral decision.Folloni: In fact, the Armageddon in Benson’s book is theclash between the Alliance and the Catholic Church.LaRouche: Exactly. But see, that’s the point. If you don’thave any principle—. You’ve heard this thing about therule of law. Now, what they mean by “rule of law” in theUnited States, which came up, for example, in thedebates on impeachment of President Clinton, it meansthe generalization of Roman law, not natural law, butRoman law, Romantic law. So, therefore, if you don’thave natural law, how can you have a dialogue of civi-lizations? How can you resolve conflicts? How can youend religious war?

Remember the principle that Europe was able to endthe religious war in Germany, in 1648, with the Treaty ofWestphalia. As Helga [Zepp LaRouche] has emphasized,read the documents of the Treaty of Westphalia: “Youmust love one another.” Which is ecumenicism. So, onlythrough a non-doctrinal, ecumenical way can you avoidreligious war, a Pantheonic kind of war, becoming anadministration of the world by imperial methods.

The emperor, Pontifex Maximus, sits on top of thePantheon, and adjudicates the differences among thedoctrines. Anybody who does not accept the emperor, iscalled a “rogue state,” and will be destroyed, as under theRoman Empire.

So that’s the danger. The issue here is a question ofmoral judgment. The only thing that can save us fromthis nonsense we’ve brought on ourselves, is the quality ofintroducing this moral judgment factor of natural law.And John Paul II is the best lawgiver we have loosetoday. On precisely that point.

20

21

Confront the Economic Crisis

Student: A question on economics. We know about theoverwhelming economic and commercial power of theUnited States compared to the rest of the planet. TheSeptember 11 attacks have heavily destabilized theAmerican economy internally as well as the global econo-my. Globalization has taught us that the world workslike communicating vessels, not separate containers. Theevil that can come with a coup in one country, on onecontinent, can end up bringing calamity and recessionalso in the bordering states and continents.

I read a radio interview you gave a few hours after theattack on the Twin Towers, in which you spoke about therisk of a depression on a global scale as a consequence ofthis attack. Is there not a bit of pessimism on your part,regarding the situation which has been created? Youspoke of a global crash, or a global collapse, when all ofthe major international financial analysts, starting withMorgan Stanley, have spoken of a recession which can beovercome in six or nine months.LaRouche: These fellows—. First of all, a world depres-sion is in process. It is in process. And it’s not a recession,it’s a depression. People are trying to sell stocks. Theywill try to sell them, they’ll probably say there’s some,build up the delusion there’s some hope of a recovery inthat crisis.

Actually, September 11 had very little effect on theeconomy, except on the airline industry. In the periodpreceding that, for example, between March of 2000 andbefore September, the United States New Economystocks had lost about $30 trillion, in terms of nominalasset value. Wall Street in general, the Dow, all these val-ues, had lost. So you have a general hyperinflation inmonetary and financial assets in the United States, and adeflation of about 30 percent in employment, in industrialand real employment.

And the United States economy was much exaggerat-ed in European opinion. For example, the United Stateseconomy is running on the basis of a current accountdeficit of about three-quarters of a trillion dollars a year.It was being propped up by large financial flows, multi-trillion-dollar financial flows, into the United Statesfinancial markets. The dropping of the flow of financialflows into the United States financial markets, would col-lapse the U.S. economy immediately.

This is crucial, because the United States no longerproduces most of its own product; it imports it. It’s shutdown its industries. You have a similar problem inEurope. European factories are shut down for cheap-labor markets abroad. Without purchasing power forcheap-labor products from abroad, Italy, Germany,

France, and so forth, would be in a terrible situation.These kinds of things—globalization, free trade, ultra-liberalization, monetarism, and ecologism—havedestroyed the economies of Europe and the UnitedStates, and much of the rest of the world besides.

See, you had the world’s most powerful economy, thetransatlantic economies, the most powerful combinationof economy in the world, and in 35 years of stupid policy,we’ve destroyed it! And people say, “You can’t change it!Look, this is irreversible. These trends, globalization, isinevitable. Free trade is inevitable. These things areinevitable.” Of course, if they’re inevitable, we’re dead.

The question is: Do we have the will to reverse, andchange the mistakes we made?

You see in the thing in Italy, for example, with theBerlusconi government. You see the initiative, which isgood, for this infrastructure development. The problemis, it doesn’t go far enough. It’s in the right direction, butit’s not enough. You have all these years of destruction ofthe Italian economy, from the time that the Mezzo-giorno project was really working. You look in Ger-many, over a similar period—a similar kind of destruc-tion of the economic power of Germany. The UnitedStates is a catastrophe.

But we did it to ourselves. Nobody from Mars, or out-er space, did it to us. We did it to ourselves. And we arenow paying the price.

Look at the danger, clearly in the eye, and you can seethe solution more clearly. If you see the solution, then youhave a reason for optimism.

The worst place to go, in a bombing attack, is underthe bed.

Orlando: We are very happy to have had this broadexposition, and especially happy for the stimulus whichwe have been given, since we have touched on somethings which are unusual for us. I agree that this is a pes-simistic view, but pessimism is an important tool, becauseit wakes people’s conscience, or it should wake people’sconscience.

If I were to give a synthesis, although it is impossibleto do so, of everything which has been said, I would saythat our attention must be concentrated above all on thegrave loss of humanity which has taken place in therecent years. There are many other subjects which wehave not touched on. For example, I think of the ques-tion of the United Nations, regional agreements, etc., butwe can do this in another meeting, otherwise we’ll behere all night.

I thank Lyndon LaRouche and all of the illustriousguests. Long live man!LaRouche: I am grateful to you, as well.

22

In Dante’s Commedia, the poetical master-piece which ushered in the Golden Renais-sance, Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, is

consigned to the Ninth Circle of Inferno. He iscondemned by the Christian poet, not becausehe is considered a heretic, but because the reli-gious movement he inaugurated was consid-ered schismatic. Dante placed the Muslimphilosopher and scientist Ibn Sina in Limbo, inthe august company of Plato and Socrates, andSalah al-Din, the Muslim leader who recap-tured Jerusalem in 1187.

One of the most famous paintings of theearly Renaissance (c. 1340), by Francesco Trai-ni, depicts Saint Thomas Aquinas stomping afigure under his feet, as if it were a snakedepicting satan. The figure under his feet is theTwelfth-century Andalusian philosopher IbnRushd, known more commonly as Averroes,who was largely responsible for reintroducingAristotle into Europe. Was Aquinas, then, acrusader against the infidel Saracen? Or Cardi-nal Nicholas of Cusa, whose ecumenical effortsat the 1439 Council of Florence forged theunion of Christendom on the basis of an imageof man which was to spark the Renaissance?Cusa, whose Cribatio Alcoranus was a theologi-cal critique of Islam, was yet the same manwho defined the parameters for an ecumenical

Andalusia, Gateway to theG

by Muriel Mirak Weissbach

This sketch of Islamic culture’s influence on Europe inthe early part of the Second Millennium, is excerptedfrom a longer work on Islamic poetry, language-culture, and philosophy, which appeared in the ThirdQuarter 1994 issue of Ibykus, the German-languagesister publication of Fidelio.

Interior of the Great Mosque of Córdoba, built A.D. 786-787 by‘Abd al-Rahman I and enlarged three times by his successors.

The double-tiered arches (right) and cupola (above) gave birthto an utterly new, and seemingly limitless, concept of space.

EIR

NS

/Mic

hael

Wei

ssba

ch

23

Gateway to theGolden Renaissance

understanding among all faiths, includingIslam, in his De Pace Fidei.

Islam, for medieval Christian Europe, wasnot an abstract religious faith. It was thelifeblood of a vibrant culture which flourishedon European soil, in Al-Andalus, from thecoming of the Arabs to Spain in 711 until theirexpulsion under Ferdinand and Isabela in1492. Andalusia, particularly from the Ninth tothe Thirteenth centuries, was a beacon oflearning, in a Europe languishing, for the mostpart, in the shadows of ignorance and econom-ic-social backwardness. Islamic culture hadflourished as well in the teeming metropolisesof Baghdad, Damascus, Samarkand, Bukhara,and Cairo, but it was Moorish Spain whichmost affected Europe.

How Christian Europe was to relate to thisrelatively superior culture, would determinethe course of later human history. Contrary tothe myths associated with the Crusades, thosefew, most enlightened Christian leaders ofEurope, whose work was to be decisive forfuture events, did not respond with a hostilecommitment to wipe out that culture. Rather,they faced the challenge presented themmuch in the same way that a great musicalcomposer, such as Beethoven or Brahms,faced the challenge presented by the revolu-E

IRN

S/M

icha

elW

eiss

bach

DIALOGUEOf

CIVILIZATIONSA Symposium

24

tion in music effected by Haydn and Mozart: Theyinvestigated what had generated such cultural excel-lence, and developed it, in specifically Christian termsof reference, as the driving force for the Renaissance.Rather than insistently hammering out a contrarytheme, opposing Christian doctrine in a scholastic formto Islam, as their Aristotelian counterparts did, theysought out and identified the underlying universalstrains of the two traditions, and, often utilizing Islamicmotifs, further developed those strains, to assert theirteaching of Christianity.

Islamic-Arab civilization, as it developed on Europeansoil in Spain, provided the impetus for the GoldenRenaissance. It did this, not, as historical accounts arewont to assert, only by transmitting through Arabictranslations the works of the Greeks and Indians, but alsoby building a scientific, economic, and artistic culture ofunprecedented power. This culture surpassed that of theMerovingians and Carolingians, largely because of therevolution in language on which it was built. (Charle-magne’s great failure, in fact, was his adherence to theartificial Latin and his reluctance to elevate the vernacu-lar into a national language.) The Arabic language-cul-ture prompted the development, as in a dialogue, of thegreat poetical traditions of France, Spain, Italy, and Ger-many—all the illustrious vernaculars of Europe, whichwere the precondition for the later establishment ofnation-states.

Al-Andalus,‘Bright Jewel ofthe World’

As early as the Ninthcentury, Andalusia hadbecome one of the won-ders of the world. TheArabs, who arrived onSpanish shores in 711, setto the task, in the follow-ing century, of buildingan urban-based society,modelled on the exampleof Baghdad, the “city ofpeace,” which, built fromscratch in 762, was tobecome a thriving centerof industry, agriculture,trade, science, and thearts, whose influenceradiated out to the East as

far as India and China. Although at its inception,Andalusia was dependent on the Emir of North Africa,who appointed a governor with the approval of theCaliph Walid ibn ‘Abd al-Malik, of the Omayyad dynastyin Damascus, Arab Spain soon became independent. TheOmayyad ‘Abd al-Rahman fled Baghdad for Spain whenthe former came under the rule of the rival Abbasiddynasty, and in 756 proclaimed an independent emirate.It was under the rule of ‘Abd al-Rahman III (912-961),who declared himself Caliph of Spain in 929, thatAndalusia flourished as a nation, reaching its high pointunder his successor al-Hakem II (961-976) and his mili-tary leader Muhammed ibn Abi Amir, known as AlMansur.

The unity of the caliphate ended in 1031, but Andalu-sian culture continued to flourish, in some cases reachingnew achievements, under the “party kings” who ruledover the city-states of Seville, Almería, Badajoz, Granada,Toledo, Málaga, and Valencia. The break-up of thecaliphate weakened the city-states politically, however,leaving them vulnerable to the military pressures of Chris-tian rulers. Toledo fell in 1085 to Alfonso VI, and Valenciawas taken temporarily by the Cid in 1094. Berber Muslimtribesmen from North Africa halted the Christianonslaught and established the Almoravid dynasty (1095-1149) and the Almohad dynasty (1149-1248). In 1236, Fer-dinand III had taken Córdoba, the capital of Andalusia,and twelve years later, conquered Seville. In the latter halfof the Thirteenth century, Muslim rule was limited to the

Gibraltar

AlicanteDenia

Granada

CórdobaMadinat al-Zahes

EvoraLisbon Badajoz

Seville

Mérida

Valencia

ToledoTalavera

de la Reina

Coimbra

MadridGuadalajara

Alcalá de Henares

Tortosa

SomosierraGuadarramaSalamanca

Gómara

MedinaceliCalatayud

SaragossaLérida Balaguer

Barcelona

BALEARIC ISLANDSIBIZA

MENORCA

MALLORCA

A L - A N D A L U S

CATALONIA

Málaga

Gua

dian

aRiv

er

Ebro River

Duero River

Tagus (Tajo) River

Gua

dalquivir River

ASTURIAS-LEÓN

Tarifa

Almería

Jaén

CASTILLE

ARAGON

NAVARRE

Oporto

León

Zamora

Huesca

Santiago de Compostla

Oviedo

Pamplona Jaca

ToulousNarbonne

A.D. 711-1031Muslim

Christian

25

kingdom of the Nasrids, which ruled over Granada,Almería, Málaga, and Algeciras.

Under ‘Abd al-Rahman II (822-852), Andalusia hadgrown to support a population of 30 million, who lived inhundreds of cities, manufacturing centers where textileswere produced, and trade and education flourished. Thecapital city, Córdoba, was the largest city in the West, with130,000 households within its walls, 3,000 mosques, and28 suburbs, with villas, palaces, and splendid gardens.

Using the same technologies and applying the samefiscal and credit policies which had been introduced bythe Baghdad caliphate in Iraq, Andalusia built up anadvanced agricultural sector. Islamic legislation did notrecognize primogeniture, but favored family farming,facilitating the distribution of land to all offspring. Farm-ers who took advantage of irrigation techniques, financedthrough taxation, paid only 5 percent rather than 10 per-cent of their yield in taxes. Dams, irrigation canals, andpumps contributed to productivity levels which far out-stripped those in Northern Europe for centuries to come.The textile industry, which employed 13,000 persons outof the 130,000 households in Córdoba, produced cotton,linen, wool, and silk. State as well as private textile millswere equipped with spindles and horizontal looms.

In the Ninth century, Andalusia’s cities were the mar-vel of chroniclers: “One sings praises to the goldenthreaded silk of Almería, Málaga, and Murcia, whosefaultless quality arouses the delight even of Orientalobservers. In Abadilla they produce those rugs that bringsuch high prices in the Orient. Granada delivers the espe-cially gloriously colorful silk dresses, of the type knownas ‘velvet shimmer.’ . . . Murcia produces wonderfulinlaid bedsteads, marvelous fabrics, metal wares, likegoldplated knives and scissors . . . which reach NorthAfrica as frequent export articles. From Murcia,Almería, and Málaga come costly glass and gold porce-lain. Al-Andalus also knows the production of variouskinds of mosaics.”1

Education in IslamThe greatest wonder of Andalusia, however, was theadvancement of learning. None of its wealth in industryand trade would have been possible without a consciousstate policy promoting science, as the driving forcebehind technological progress and overall economicgrowth. As with the policy pursued under the Abbasidsin Baghdad, the Andalusian rulers promoted learningand patronized the arts as a means of raising the culturallevel of the population. ‘Abd al-Rahman I started build-ing the great mosque in 785, an immense public-worksproject, which established the religious and educational

center of the capital. It was enlarged and extended by hissuccessors ‘Abd al-Rahman II and ‘Abd al-Rahman III,and completed by al-Hakem II.

Since the time of Mohammed, the mosque had func-tioned as “the Islamic educational institution par excel-lence.” Mohammed was primarily a teacher, who gath-ered his followers into a circle (the halqah), to tell themabout the new faith. In the second and third centuriesafter Mohammed, as the mosque flourished as a school,other educational institutions were introduced: the kut-tab, for elementary education in reading, writing, arith-metic, and in the Koran, as well as some poetry and say-ings. Much stress was placed on developing the capacityfor memorization. In addition, the homes of learned men(’ulama) and of paper merchants (warraqun) were turnedinto school rooms.

In the Ninth-Tenth centuries, the mosque schoolsevolved into universities, the first in Europe, which flour-ished in every city, drawing Jewish, Christian, and Mus-lim scholars and students like magnets, from all over theworld. Finally, there were the academies, separate fromthe mosques, the most famous of which were the Houseof Wisdom (Dur al-Hikmah) and the House of Science(Dur al-’Ilm), which were libraries, translation centers,and astronomical observatories. In the Tenth andEleventh centuries, the madrasah, a state-sponsored edu-cational institution, appeared in Persia and Baghdad, aswell as in Andalusia.

Elementary education was generally organized as afamily matter, with the parents coming to some agree-ment with the teacher regarding payment.

Hakem II extended education to the needy, by building27 elementary schools in Córdoba for children of poor fam-ilies. Three of these were located near the great mosque,and the remaining 24 in the suburbs “to impart free educa-tion.” One chronicler reports that in Córdoba alone, therewere 800 schools. In addition, a large orphanage was builtin Córdoba, as in many other towns. Thus, “the majority ofMuslims could read and write.” The German philologistGustav Diercks remarked that “there were even in thesmallest villages, public schools and schools for the poor insuch numbers, that one has good reason to assume thatunder al-Hakem II, at least in the province of Córdoba, noone was ignorant of reading and writing.”

Al-Hakem was himself a scholar, who had read manyof the 400,000 books which filled his famous library, asindicated by his marginal notations. Books originallywritten in Persia and Syria, became known first inAndalusia. The city produced 60,000 books a year, facili-tated by the use of paper, an invention the Arabs had tak-en from the Chinese, and developed in factories in everymajor city. Córdoba, the pearl of Andalusia, was

26

renowned throughout Europe. In her poem on the mar-tyrdom of Saint Pelagius, written in the Saxon cloister ofGandersheim, the Abbess Hroswitha had glowing wordsfor Córdoba, the “bright jewel of the world, the young,marvelous city, proud of her power of resistance, famousfor the delights which she embraces, beaming in full pos-session of all things.”

The Miracle of ArabicNorthern Europe gazed at the marvel of Al-Andalus inawe, not without a tinge of suspicion, wondering whatthe secret behind the brilliance of Arab Spain could be.Although some conjectured that sorcery was what wastaught in the halls of Toledo’s academies, the truth isthat Islamic Spain was a humanist culture which hadbeen founded on a crucial scientific discovery: the Arabiclanguage.

Mohammed, whom Muslims consider the last prophetin a series beginning with Abraham, was an illiterate, whoreceived the revelation, contained in the holy book of theKoran, with the injunction by God: “Read! Recite!” Themiracle which gave birth to the new religion was there-fore the miracle of language, whose appearance toMohammed echoed the act by which God had given thegift of speech to the first man, Adam. It was not languagein general, but the Arabic language, based on that spokenby the Quayrash clan in Arabia, but elevated through thepoetry of the Koran to a literary tongue. It was whatDante would later call an “illustrious vernacular,” a lan-guage spoken by the people, but forged through the trans-mission of universal ideas, in this case divine revelation,into a vehicle capable of transmitting the most profoundideas regarding man and the universe.

This emphasis on the written word, on the power oflanguage, which comes directly from the religious world-view embodied in the Koran, was crucial to developingthe society of Andalusia. Ironically, this same society didnot succeed in developing a nation-state at that time(although there are Arab and Islamic nation-states today,created through a different process). It did not succeed inelaborating those institutions which would create a nationaround this language-culture, for reasons which have todo with the relationship between the idea of the commu-nity of believers (Umma) and the nation, as it evolved geo-graphically and historically. And, in a sense, the tension inArab and Islamic societies between the Umma and thenation, has continued to the present day.

The Koran itself is considered by Muslims to be whatone might call a unique experiment; although the validityof the ideas it contains is to be taken on faith and is sus-ceptible to rigorous proof by Reason, yet an oft-cited test

of its validity is in the very form of its expression. Thismeans, that were one to attempt to express the samethought contained in any of the Koran’s verses, in anoth-er form, it would be impossible. Thus the poetical textstands for Muslims as a scientific proof.

The role that the language has come to play in everyfacet of Arab culture is unique. Since it is incumbent onMuslims to read and recite the Koran in Arabic in dailyprayers, believers who were won over to the faith had tolearn to speak, read, and write the language of the Koran.Its expansion was tantamount to a literacy campaign. AsIslam spread like wildfire through non-Arab popula-tions, to the East through Persia and India up to Chinaand southeast Asia, as well as westward across NorthAfrica and into Spain, care had to be taken to maintainthe purity of the language, easily corrupted by non-nativespeakers. Thus, the first improvements introduced by theearly Caliph ’Uthman included revising the script so as tofix the values of sounds.

The systematic treatment of word-formation was cru-cial to the monumental translation efforts, begun underthe Abbasids in Baghdad, and continued throughout theArab world, notably in Córdoba and Toledo in Spain.

Entrance to the Great Mosque of Córdoba.

EIR

NS

/Mic

hael

Wei

ssba

ch

27

To render ideas expressed in Greek philosophy and sci-ence, new Arabic terms had to be coined, and the lan-guage grew through this process into an extraordinarilyflexible vehicle of expression. Arabic translations weregiven highest priority by the Caliph Harun al-Rashid(764?-809) in Baghdad, who, embodying the oft-citedMuslim maxim, “Seek knowledge even if it were in Chi-na,” would send emissaries to Byzantium and other partsof the world in search of ancient manuscripts, to betranslated, with the help of Syrian Christians at his court,into Syriac, and thence into Arabic, or directly into Ara-bic. Under Caliph al-Mamun (813-833), translation workwas transformed into a highly organized activity, in theHouse of Wisdom, a complex which became a transla-tion center, an academy, an astronomical observatory,and one of the richest libraries in the world. Directing ateam of ninety translators was the Nestorian ChristianHunayn ibn-Ishaq (809-877), who introduced themethod of conceptual rather than literal translation. Allthe works of Classical Greece which could be foundwere rendered into Arabic, from the medical works ofHippocrates and Galen, to the philosophy of Plato and

Aristotle, to the science and geometry of Ptolemy,Euclid, and Archimedes. An effort of the same magni-tude was undertaken in Muslim Spain, where institu-tions modelled on the House of Wisdom grew up inCórdoba and Seville.

The fact that Hunayn ibn-Ishaq would receive foreach book translated, its weight in gold, testifies to thevalue placed on knowledge—and the diffusion ofknowledge—in Muslim culture. As Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihiwrote in the Tenth century, knowledge and its spreadthrough education are “the pillars upon which rests theaxis of religion and the world. They distinguish manfrom the beast, and the rational from the irrationalbeing.” The Andalusian poet and philosopher Ibn Hazm(d. 1064) exalted the role of knowledge in developingvirtue, and condemned those who were greedy withtheir knowledge. The best means for disseminatinglearning, said Ibn Hazm, was through books, the posses-sion of which in private libraries became the hallmark ofthe learned man.

Such attitudes reflect a love of knowledge which isfundamental to Islam. Among the prophetic traditionsincluded by Ibn Khayr in his Farasah, are the following:

There is nothing greater in the eye of God than a man wholearned a science and who taught it to people.

A Muslim cannot bestow on his brother a better gift than aword of wisdom. If the brother hears, grasps, then trans-mits it, God will guide him, and divert him from evil, sincethe word of wisdom leads to the uplifting of the soul.

Scholars and teachers are partners in reward, and there areno better people than they.

The knowledge that is not used is like a treasure fromwhich nothing is spent. Its possessors labored in collectingit, but never benefitted from it.

And God directs you to one single man [who is learned], itis better for you than the whole world and all in it.

Such was the spirit that pervaded Andalusia. “In nocountry and in no other cultural epoch was the drive forsuch extensive scientific travel so widespread, as in Mus-lim Spain, from the Tenth century on. It was perfectlycommonplace for inhabitants of the peninsula to maketheir way across the monstrous stretch on the NorthAfrican coast, to Egypt, and from there to Bukhara orSamarkand, in order to hear the lectures of a famousscholar.”2 This was the spirit that gave rise to publicschools for needy children, as well as splendid publiclibraries, seventy of which were still open in the Thir-teenth century, and to such high literacy rates that“almost everyone could read and write, whereas this wasa privilege restricted to the clergy in northern Europe.”3

Interior courtyard of the Alhambra in Granada, built in theThirteenth and Fourteenth centuries.

EIR

NS

/Mic

hael

Wei

ssba

ch

28

The Poetry of the Koran

The driving force behind the quest for knowledge,through translations, books, and education, was theKoran, a poetical text which urged the believer toincrease his knowledge as a means of praising theAlmighty. The Koran stood as the cornerstone for fur-ther edification of the language-culture. Although pre-Islamic poetry flourished in Arabia, it was the birth ofIslam that gave the poetry its greatest impetus.

Poetry was the heart of Andalusian culture. Ananthology of Andalusian poetry from the Tenth centurycompiled by Ibn Ferradsch, The Garden, had two hun-dred chapters, and each of them a hundred double verses.Poetry was a part of life. Not only were statesmen citedfor their poetical productions, but “every peasant wasobsessed by the gift of improvisation, and even thefarmer behind the plough, would make verses about anysubject whatsoever.”4 Chronicles report that poetry wasan indispensable tool for every aspect of social and politi-cal life. “Poems, which wound around columns andwalls, in various intertwinings, constituted a major deco-ration in the palaces, and even in the government chan-celleries, the art of poetry played a role. . . . Men from thehumblest condition rose to the highest, honored posi-tions, to royal consideration, solely through their poeticaltalent; verses gave the signal for bloody combat and dis-armed again as well the rage of the victor; poetry had tolay its weight in the balance, in order to lend more energyto diplomatic negotiations; and a happy improvisationoften broke open the jail gates for a prisoner or saved thelife of one condemned to death.”5

The poet held a position at court as cherished as thatof the translator and the teacher, and as richly rewarded.When in 822 ‘Abd al-Rahman II ceremoniously wel-comed the famous poet Ali ibn Nafi, known as Zirjab ofBaghdad, to his court in Córdoba, he offered him 200gold pieces per month, abundant goods in kind, 2,000gold pieces in gifts per year, and the use of various hous-es, fields, and gardens worth 14,000 gold pieces. Zirjabbrought with him from Baghdad the wealth of Orientalcustoms, dress, and culture, above all poetry and music.Zirjab knew 20,000 songs by heart, and would call inwomen of the court, themselves accomplished musicians,to take down in writing the songs he had composed inthe night. Zirjab brought with him as well the knowl-edge of musical instruments and theory current in theEast, and introduced an innovation to the lute (from theArabic al ’ud) by adding a fifth string. In the years there-after, Seville would become the renowned center of pro-duction of musical instruments, from lutes and guitars, toflutes, copper trumpets, tambourines, and others.

Zirjab was not only a practical musician and poet, but alearned man, who spent hours conversing with ‘Abd al-Rahman about poetry, history, astronomy, science, and art.

Poets at court were an institution from the earliestcaliphs in Spain. The poet Yahja, nicknamed “al Gazal”(the gazelle) because of his good looks, served his caliph,‘Abd al-Rahman II, well, as a virtual ambassador, whooverwhelmed the Emperor in Constantinople with hisimprovised verses celebrating the beauty of the empress.The poets Ibn ‘Abd Rebbihi and Mondhir Ibn Said at thecourt of ‘Abd al-Rahman III became legendary figures,thanks to the power of their poetry.

The European VernacularsWhat kind of poetry did these masters sing? In additionto the classical poetical form known as the qasida, a longcomposition with a single rhyme and quantitative stresswhich Islamic Spain inherited from the Arabs in theEast, a new poetical form was born in Andalusia whichwas to have the most profound effects on the successivecourse of European culture. This was the song known asthe muwashsha, invented in the Ninth century. It was astrophic poem, the predecessor of the canzone, a strophicpoem whose poetic form is shown in Figure 1. The formof the stanza is organized as follows. It begins with twolines which rhyme: “ahd— ar, tazhar.” Then, three lines witha different rhyme: “gamalu, digalu, simalu.” And last, afinal line, which rhymes with the opening lines:“yanawwar.” The Arabic names for the parts of the stan-za are: first, markaz; second, gusn; and last, simt.

Figure 2 shows an example of a muwashsha in Arabicscript, transliterated into the Roman alphabet, and trans-lated into English.

The muwashsha form was a new development in thehistory of the Arabic language. Classical Arabic poetry hada continuous rhyme, without this internal division, this

FIGURE 2. Arabic poem in muwashsha form by the Eleventh-century A

29

organization into thought-objects, so to speak. This revo-lution was introduced into the Arabic language in Spainand in Arabia more or less at the same time, in the Ninthcentury. From there, it spread like wildfire throughout thecourts of Europe, through the troubadours, through theGerman minstrels (Minnesänger), and so on.

Figure 3 shows some examples of the muwashsha formin the languages which were emerging as vernaculars inEurope at that time, including Spanish, Italian,Provençal, and German.

In the Spanish poem beginning “Vivo ledo con razon,”for example, you can see that the stanza is organized intothe same parts, with Spanish names for the correspond-ing Arabic ones.

The Italian example, which begins “Morte villana, dipietà nemica,” comes from Dante’s Vita Nuova. This isexactly a muwashsha stanza, the exactly same form thatyou find in the Arabic. It demonstrates that Dante knewthe Arabic muwashsha form directly.

Most of the poems in Andalusia, in this tradition, werepoems of courtly love. They were poems that praised thequalities of the damsel, of the lady, the beloved. Some ofthem, however, were ironical; some of them were social-critical, polemical; and some of them were epigrammatic.For example, from the Thirteenth century, the followingpoem by Ibn al-Khabazza is called “The King Who DiedYoung”:

Your life was of the order trueOf Arab eloquence:The tale was brief, the words were few;The meaning was immense.6

Another, called “Mutability,” is by one of the greatestpoets in Andalusia, Ibn Hazm, who lived in the late-Tenth and early-Eleventh centuries:

Let not my jealous foesExult in my disgrace;For Fortune comes and goesNor tarries in one place.

A free man is like goldNow cast for hammering,But presently, behold!A crown upon a king.

Among the religious poets, who were a large number inAndalusia, the mystics in Islam, there was a poetical formthat developed, which was a form of a dialogue betweenthe believer and God. And the idea behind this poetry wasto try to reach oneness—unity—with God. This is thepoetry that particularly influenced Ramon Llull(Raimundus Lullus) (c.1235-1316), who in fact wrote anentire series of poems based on this model, called The Bookof the Friend and the Beloved, in which he develops what hecalls spiritual metaphors—365, one for each day of theyear—between himself, the friend, and the beloved, God.

FIGURE 1. Poetic form of the Arabic muwashsha.

– – – – – – – amarkaz

– – – – – – – a

– – – – – – – b– – – – – – – b gusn– – – – – – – b

– – – – – – – a simt

– – – – – – – c– – – – – – – c gusn– – – – – – – c

– – – – – – – a simt

etc.

Andalusian poet Ibn Guzman.

The earth spreads out a green carpet,The daisies open up and the world blossoms:

Speak of the white lily and praise its beauty,And forget not the magnificence of the rose,And place the narcissus on the left.

And mention not the jasmine, until it blooms.

Al-ard—u qad maddat bisat—an ahd—arWa Úl-aqh—uwan yaftah—, wa Úd-dunya tazhar:

H— addat¿ an as-susan wÚamdah gamaluWa al-ward la tansah wÚamdah digaluWa galas an-nargas ala simalu

Wa Úgğfil ani Úl-yasmın h—atta yanawwar!

Transliteration: English translation:

30

FIGURE 3. Arabic muwashsha poetic form, as used in early European vernaculars.

Middle High German(Minnesänger)

Got hat wunders vil gewundertmanich tusent manich hunderteynes han ich uz gesundertdas is wunderbare.

God hast wrought full many wondersMany thousand many hundredOne alone from these I’ve chosenWho is wonderful.

Provençal(Troubadour)

Farai chansoneta nueveans que vent ni gel ni plueva;ma dona m’assai’ e.m pruevaquossi de qual guiza l’am;e ja per plag que m’an muevano.m solvera de son liam.

Thou wilt fashion a new songBefore the cold and rain arrive;I am put to such great testsThe sparks fly from my soul;Despite the pain that moves meThese bonds will not dissolve.

Italian(from Dante’s Vita Nuova; first stanza only)

Morte villana, di pietà nemica,di dolor madre antica,guidicio incontestabile gravoso,poi che hai data matera al cor dogliosoond’io vado pensoso,di te blasmar la lingua s’affatica.

Villainous Death, enemy to pity,ancient mother of pain,incontestable grave judgment,since thou hast given substance to the grieved

heartwhich is why I am engulfed in thought,my tongue grows weary of censuring thee.

Patre beato, per tua caritade,Ensegnaci a fare la tua bontade.

Benigno Patre, per tuo gran dolcezza,Contra li vizii danne fortezza,Che nostra carne per suo fragilezza

Sempre ne cessa da tua amistade.

Spesso superbia a noi abbonda,Che ne fa perder tuo grazia gicconda.Dolce Signore, nostra menta fonda

Sempre in perfetta umilitade.

Vivo ledo con razon estribillo

Amigoes, toda sazon.

Vivo ledo e sin pesar,pues amor me fizo amar mudanzasa la que podré llamar

mas bella de cuantas son. vuelta

Vivo ledo e vevirépues que de amor alcancé mudanzasque servire’ a la que sé

que me dara galardón. vuelta

I live in joy for a reason,friends, every moment.

I am gay and without sorrow,for love has made me loveher whom I would call

the loveliest of them all.

Happy I am, and shall be,for love has granted meto love her who I know

shall requite me.

Blessed Father, for thy charityTeach us to do thy good.

Benevolent Father, for thy sweetness,Against vices, give us strength,As our flesh, being weak

Always ceases with thy friendship.

Often pride abounds in us,Which makes us lose thy lovely grace.Sweet Lord, thrust our spirit

Always in perfect humility.

Spanish

Italian

Christian Princes and Arab Culture

Two courts of Christian princes are exemplary of the richdialogue that ensued with Islamic Spain, those of Alfonsothe Wise, and Frederick II Hohenstaufen of Palermo. InNinth-century Andalusia, Arabic was the universal lan-guage, also among the Christians. Thus, when Christianforces took Toledo in 1085, the culture remained Arab.The kings of Castille and Aragon took Arab women fortheir wives, among them Alfonso IV, Alfonso VII, andAlfonso the Wise (1221-1284). Arabic works were rapidlyrendered into Latin in the translation schools, like that ofArchbishop Raymond in Toledo, and not only GreekClassics, but also the Koran, were translated. UnderAlfonso, translations were done into Lengua Romana7

and French, as well as Latin. It was largely theMozaraber—Christians who had lived under Arabrule—and the Morisken, or Mudejaren—Muslims livingunder Christian rule—who mediated the language andthe culture to the new Christian leaders. Alfonso set up aschool where the Arab philosopher Muhamed al-Riqutiwas to teach Arabs, Christians, and Jews. He also found-ed a “general school of Arabic and Latin” in Seville,where Christians and Muslims taught science and philos-ophy. Alfonso commissioned Arab navigators andastronomers to work with him on compiling the “Astro-nomical Tables,” and authored a history of Spain. HisCantigas de Santa María also shows the strong Arab influ-ence [SEE Box, page 32].

Then there was Hohenstaufen Sicily, a Christian Arabculture. From the conquest of the Normans in 1091,through the reign of the Hohenstaufen, everything wasassimilated from the previous Muslim rulers, from thelanguage, to the architecture, music, poetry, and science,to the habits of dress. Roger of Sicily by 1140 had intro-duced strict legislation controlling the certification of doc-tors, along the lines of what Baghdad had done. FrederickII (1215-1250), who grew up with Arabic as his native lan-guage, called Baghdad scientists to his court, along withmusicians and poets. He was so thoroughly Arabized (hewas even buried in Arab dress), that Pope Innocent IVaccused him of being a crypto-Muslim. Both Frederickand Roger II (1101-1154) came to be known as the “bap-tized sultans of Sicily.” His “crusade” to Jerusalem partic-ularly outraged the Papacy, because, instead of wagingwar to regain territories, Frederick negotiated with theMuslims, and dedicated his time to philosophical discus-sions with their scholars. Later, Frederick addressed aseries of questions regarding the nature of God to theAndalusian philosopher Ibn Sabin, whose answers werepublished as the “Sicilian Questions.” He founded theUniversity of Naples in 1224, on the model of the Andalu-

sian centers of study. Enjoying a royal charter, the univer-sity offered a program in Oriental studies, one whichThomas Aquinas, among others, took advantage of. Sig-nificantly, Frederick II also continued the Muslim fiscalsystem, which the Normans before him had adopted.Frederick’s son Manfred, who was an accomplishedgeometer, continued his father’s policies. His liberalapproach to Muslims who filled his court earned him andhis brother Conrad a Papal condemnation.

Thus, at the same time the Aristotelean Averroes pro-ject was being implemented in Paris and Venice, the jew-els of Arab culture were being admired and polished inToledo, Seville, and Palermo, to be passed on to thosewho would lay the groundwork for the FlorentineRenaissance. The two most significant influences in thisprocess were Ramon Llull and Dante Alighieri. Bothrejected Islam, but assimilated the Arab culture it hadengendered.

Faith Based on ReasonRamon Llull was born in Majorca in 1232, just after ithad been conquered by the Christians, and grew up in athoroughly Arab culture. After a personal crisis, he aban-doned family and position to dedicate his life to mission-ary work, specifically to converting the Muslims to Chris-tianity. His mentor, the Dominican Raymond Penyfort inBarcelona, dissuaded him from studying in Paris, tellinghim that Paris could not provide him the knowledge herequired for the task. Llull did go to Paris later to take aprominent role in the anti-Averroes fight, but in 1265 hefollowed Penyfort’s recommendation and secluded him-self for ten years in Majorca, with a tutor, an Arab freedslave. Llull mastered Arabic and plunged into study ofthe Greek philosophers, particularly Plato, and the neo-Platonists (from both the Christian and Muslim tradi-tions), in particular Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina. He also readthe works of the Andalusian mystics, like Ibn Hazm ofCórdoba, Ibn ‘Arabi (d. 1240), and Ibn Sa’bin of Murcia(d. 1269/71).

Although thoroughly steeped in the teachings of theChurch fathers, Llull placed special emphasis on acquiringIslamic science, which he deemed necessary to the task hehad set for himself: to convert the Muslims, by showingthem what he believed to be the superiority of Christianityin their own terms. In an anecdote related several times indifferent works by Llull, he tells the story of the Sultan ofTunis, who was being asked to convert to Christianity. TheSultan asked the learned Christian who had introducedhim to the faith, why he should believe in Christianityrather than in Islam. When the Christian replied, that itwas a question of “faith,” the Sultan retorted: “Why should

31

32

Alfonso the Wise: ‘King of the Three Religions’

Alfonso X, el Sabio (the Wise) (1221-1284) wasKing of Castille and León from 1252 to 1282.

Like his uncle, Frederick II Hohenstaufen, who ruledin Sicily, and all of Christian Europe, as Holy RomanEmperor from 1220 to 1250, Alfonso was among thepolitical rulers of his age who took the first steps toestablish sovereign nation-states in Europe. And, likehis uncle Frederick II’s Palermo, Alfonso’s Spainexperienced an ecumenical flowering of scientific andartistic development, based on the cross-fertilization ofMuslim, Christian, and Jewish communities livingunder its protection.

Alfonso’s central project of government was tomake the Iberian peninsula—at the time, only par-tially reconquered from Islam—a unified kingdom,and its inhabitants a literate and cultured citizenry.He sought to create a nation-state (Spain) by creatinga national language (Castilian), where neither yetexisted. His Cantigas de Santa María song-poemswere the first literary works in the Iberian peninsulato be written in the vernacular Castilian. His SietePartidas, also in the vernacular, was Spain’s first legalcode for the kingdom as a whole, establishing anational system of law where only local “fueros”(statutory rights) had held force previously. And,Alfonso authored the first general history of Spain,the Crónica General de España, before Spain as sucheven existed as a nation.

To accomplish these tasks, Alfonso sponsored amajor scientific and translation center in the city ofToledo, building on the Twelfth-century achieve-ments of Bishop Don Raimundo of Toledo, and Bish-op Don Rodrigo Ximénez de Rada. Toledo becamethe world’s most important crossroad of the threegreat monotheistic religions: Islam, Christianity, andJudaism. Not only did they live in peace under Alfon-so, but he set each to cooperate with the others aroundtheir common humanist heritage, in an exemplaryecumenical alliance—even at the height of the Christ-ian Reconquest of Spain from the Moors, a centuries-long war in which Alfonso personally participated as ayouth. It was this outlook that caused Alfonso to dubhimself the “King of the Three Religions.”

All major translations at the Toledo School were exe-cuted by teams of two scholars working simultaneous-ly—one whose mother tongue was the language of thedocument to be translated; the other being a native speak-

er of the target-language into which it was to be rendered.One of the earliest Toledo translations was of the Koraninto Castilian, done by teams consisting of an Arab and aChristian. The same was done with the Hebrew Talmud.

At its height, Alfonso’s Toledo School of Transla-tion had an incredible 12,000 students learning fromthe masters of European culture. One of the most dis-tinguished Italian visiting professors, for example,was Brunetto Latini—the later teacher and mentor ofDante Alighieri.

The Common GoodThe kind of kingdom Alfonso wished to make ofSpain is best reflected in his famous legal code, theSiete Partidas, issued over the period 1251-1265, butnot actually implemented until almost a century later.The stated objective of the Siete Partidas was to orga-nize society not for the benefit of the few, but for thecommon good—a revolutionary proposal at the time:“The Law-Maker should love God and keep Himbefore his eyes when he makes the laws, in order thatthey may be just and perfect. He should moreoverlove justice and the common benefit of all.”

Alfonso emphasized the connection between suchjustice, and scientific knowledge: “He should belearned, in order to know how to distinguish rightfrom wrong, and he should not be ashamed to changeand amend his laws.” As opposed to such a just ruler,tyrants “prefer to act for their own advantage, althoughit may result in injury to the country, rather than for thecommon benefit of all.”

Presaging later developments in the emergence ofthe nation-state, Alfonso proclaimed that the onlytrue authority to govern comes from the ruler’s dedi-cation to the common good: “If [the ruler] shouldmake a bad use of his power . . . people can denouncehim as a tyrant, and his government which was law-ful, will become wrongful.” In the midst of stratifiedEuropean feudal society, Alfonso el Sabio explainedwhat he meant by “the people”: “The union of allmen together, those of superior, middle, and inferiorrank, was called the people; for all are necessary, andnone can be excepted for the reason that they areobliged to assist one another in order to live properlyand be protected and supported.”

—Dennis Small

I give up my belief for another, on grounds of faith—credere pro credere? No,” he said, “I shall believe only thatwhich Reason tells me—credere pro vero intelligere.”

Llull relates the anecdote time and again. Rejectingoutright any notion of forced conversion, he started fromthe assumption that the individual human mindendowed with reason, upon being presented intelligiblythe superiority of Christian teaching, could and would,through an act of love, make the sovereign decision toembrace the faith. Thus he sought out and addressed themost learned among the Muslims as his interlocutors. Hisway of bringing them the Christian message was to argueit philosophically, as opposed to the scholastics, withoutreference to “authorities.” He argued according to whathe termed “necessary reason” or “right reason,” devel-oped in terms of the cultural matrix of his listener. Thereason why he believed mastery of Arabic and the Mus-lim philosophers to be crucial, was that he intended tomake his God intelligible to them by adopting the philo-sophical method which they acknowledged to be themeans of seeking truth. Only in so proceeding, hethought, would a convert be a true believer.

That Llull failed in the task as he had defined it—thathe did not convert masses to Christianity despite hisrepeated missions to Muslim lands and died a bitterman—does not detract from the magnitude of his accom-plishment. For, by seeking to supercede Islamic thinkingfrom a Platonic Christian standpoint, so to speak, “fromwithin” the matrix of the most advanced contributionsmade by the Arabs, he succeeded in elaborating a newphilosophical method which was to bear its fruits in thework of Cusa and, later, Leibniz. Dialogue, in Llull’s expe-rience, was not the exchange of positions and the ascertain-ment of similarities and differences; it was the process ofepistemological confrontation, through which epoch-mak-ing progress in knowledge is achieved. The work in whichhe developed the ecumenical dialogue most brilliantly wasThe Three Sages and the Pagan (1274-76), known to Cusa(whose library in Bernkastel-Kues still contains the largestsingle collection of Llull’s works).

Llull’s influence on ecumenicism was profound. Mostimmediately, owing to his efforts, the Catalan king estab-lished a school for the training of missionaries in Majorca,called Miramare, which embodied Llull’s approach. Rununder the auspices of the Franciscans and endorsed byPope John XXI in 1276 (the same who ordered the refuta-tions of Averroes in Paris), it was the first school to offermissionaries studies in the languages of the other reli-gions, who then would be “entering into union with andgetting to know strangers and friends.” Llull campaignedfor other such schools, through petitions to the Popes andto the Vienne Council of 1311; the canons of the council

welcomed his proposals, and deliberated to establish fiveschools: in Rome, Bologna, Paris, Oxford, and Salamanca(which were founded only centuries later). These schoolswere to teach Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac, and Greek. It wasdue to such efforts that not only the philosophical worksof the Arabs, but also the Koran itself, were actually read,and eventually translated, so that Christians as well asJews could find out what Islam was.

As a Catalan Christian, Llull recognized the need toforge a Catalan language of the same power as Arabic,and did so, largely by using Arabic syntax and morpholo-gy to shape the new vernacular as a literary tool.

Dante’s Debt to IslamThe greatest achievement in this regard, however, wasDante’s, and it came as a direct result of the work done inSeville and Palermo. In his De Vulgari Eloquentia, hisseminal work on the vernaculars, Dante lamented thefact that there were other vernaculars superior to Italian;although he does not identify them, the only ones current

33

The Thirteenth-century Catalan philosopher Ramon Llull (1232-1315) established a dialogue based on reason between Christianityand Islam.

in Europe were Hebrew and Arabic, and Arabic wasoverwhelmingly more widespread. In seeking the rawmaterial out of which to shape Italian as a national lan-guage, he pointed to the Sicilian dialect, and to Freder-ick’s Palermo, as the birthplace of the Italian language.At the same time, Dante identified the Spanish poets andthe Provençal troubadours, their literary relatives, as thecouriers of a new poetry and language, which had beenshaped on the Arabic poetic models. Dante’s teacher,Brunetto Latini, as he relates in the Commedia, was theFlorentine ambassador to the court of Alfonso, who, afterspending time in his rich library full of Arabic works,composed the Tesoro, a work that, for Dante, representedthe summary of scientific knowledge.

What was Dante’s relationship to Islam? The muchmaligned Spanish Christian priest-scholar Miguel AsínPalacios did groundbreaking work in the early years ofthe Twentieth century on the influence of Islam, as medi-ated through Moorish Andalusia, on Dante. His workprovoked turmoil in the ranks of the “Dantisti” inEurope, who slandered it as an attempt to “de-Christian-ize” Dante, until further serious scholarship finally had toadmit that he was right. Palacios showed that the leitmotif of the Commedia, the ascension of man (Dante thepilgrim) to Paradise, springs from an episode in the life ofMohammed, barely sketched in the Koran, which wasthe subject of several lengthy Arabic poems. The episodein Arabic literature is known as the Mi’raj, which relatesthe ascent of Mohammed from Jerusalem to Paradise, anepisode well known in Spain (translated by Alfonso) andItaly of the Thirteenth century, and recounted by Brunet-to Latini in his Tesoro.

That Dante was conversant with Arab philosophy isamply documented in his own works, whether in theConvivio or the Commedia itself; Dante’s depiction ofMohammed, consigned to the circle of the schismatics, hasa wealth of detail regarding the internal factional strugglein early Islam that no one otherwise in Europe was awareof. Furthermore, Dante explicitly acknowledges his debtto great Muslim philosophers like Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi,Ibn Sina, Al-Fragani, Ibn ‘Arabi, and many others in hisprose works. It is largely through the Arabs that Dantehad access to the Platonic science of Greece.

What is important in Dante’s relation to Islam is notthe “literary motifs” or “influences,” but the approach thepoet took to Islamic-Arab culture, an approach similar to,but more enlightened than, that of Llull, whose worksDante also knew.

One should view the Commedia as Dante’s dialogue-response to Islam. If one thinks of the extent to whichMuslim-Arab culture had penetrated Europe in the Thir-teenth century when Dante was writing—whether nega-tively in the fight around Averroism in Paris, or positively

in the enviable achievements of Andalusia and Palermo—one sees that Dante consciously wrote the Commedia as aresponse, so to speak, to Islam. Here was a culture, a Mus-lim culture, which had reached extraordinary social andcultural excellence in Spain and southern Italy, which hadbeen shaped by a religious worldview transmittedthrough the Koran, a poem in the Arabic vernacularaccessible to, indeed memorized by, most Muslims. Dante,in his De Vulgari Eloquentia, makes clear his intent tocompose a poetical masterpiece forging an Italian vernac-ular which will constitute the epistemological, moral, andreligious basis for an Italian nation-state. What bettermeans, then, than to “quote” a motif from the Koran,elaborated in Muslim literature, depicting Mohammed’sascension, and transform it into the ascension of theChristian pilgrim Dante, to Paradise? This is Dante’s wayof demonstrating his notion of the superiority of theChristian worldview in terms comprehensible to thoseshaped by the hegemonic Arab culture.

The central theme of the Commedia is the Trinity, theconcept which separates Christianity from Islam. Notonly is the entire poem trinitarian in form, but theprocess through which the pilgrim Dante (and thus thereader) progresses from the intellectual-moral parame-ters of Hell, through Purgatory, into Paradise, is the“proof” of the Trinity. It is through the pilgrim Dante’sself-perfection process, his successive acquiring of thelaws of God’s universe, that he gains access to the realmof science which is Paradise. Earthly Paradise (which canbe seen as the paradise of the Koran) is shown to be achimera, at the end of the book of Purgatory, and, inpolemical opposition to this, true Paradise unfolds as theprogress of the individual mind in comprehension of thelaws of God’s universe, as science. It is through thisprocess, whereby the human mind progressivelyapproaches the laws of universal creation, through pro-gressive, scientific discoveries, that man proves the coher-ence between the mind of man and the divine ordering ofcreation. Dante’s poem is the ultimate proof in Christianterms of imago viva Dei and of the Trinity, which is thefinal vision of the last canto.

The Council of FlorenceDante’s poem had the single most important impact on theRenaissance prior to Nicolaus of Cusa’s convening of theCouncil of Florence in 1437-39. Even at the Council, whichwas held in the church of S. Maria del Fiore, a paintingdepicting the Commedia was on the wall for all to see. Sig-nificantly, Dante’s poem furnished the poetical vehiclethrough which the Italian population not only became liter-ate, but was educated in the fundamental concepts ofChristianity. It should not be overlooked that at the time of

34

Dante, the Bible was not accessible to the population atlarge; yet the Commedia became the text which was recitedand commented upon in the churches of Fourteenth- andFifteenth-century Florence—in strikingly similar fashionto the manner in which the Koran was recited and com-mented upon among the Muslims at the same time in otherparts of Europe. Brunelleschi had the Commedia on hisbedside table. Leonardo knew it by heart. Dante’s Comme-dia embodied and transmitted the entirety of Arab science(as he himself acknowledged) either directly, or throughthe work of Christian Arabists like Roger Bacon and oth-ers, in perspective, physics, poetry, and music. But it did soin such a way as to celebrate the power of Christian man,made in the image of God, to acquire such knowledge.Dante’s poem is also an implicit response to the works ofleading Muslim mystics like Ibn Hazm and Ibn ‘Arabi,whom Dante knew and whose works he reflected in theCommedia. Whereas they had shown the pathway to Godthrough direct meditation, Dante demonstrated that onlythe individual mind, retracing and experiencing break-throughs in scientific discovery, can reach the final vision oflight which is God.

It is this emphasis on the concrete, discrete individualas the particular image of the universal God, which per-vades the explosion of creative activity in the ItalianRenaissance. Here, too, it is not adventurous to hypothe-size that the creative excellence particularly in the figura-tive arts, represented an indirect response to Islam.Although the science of perspective, as Dante amongmany others attests, was mediated and further developedby the Arabs to Europe, yet it was the Platonic Christian

Renaissance which applied that science of perspective toexalt the position of the human being in universal space.Islam had privileged the spoken word in poetry andsong, and architecture, but had not developed pictorialart. The visual representation of the notion of imago vivaDei is what Christian Renaissance art seized on (which isutterly lacking in previous Byzantine art, even though itformally depicts the human figure), to render the idea ofthe universal through the individual.

Thus, the process which unfolds from Ramon Llulland Dante, onward into the Fifteenth-century Renais-sance, can well be viewed as a grand dialogue, a “GreatFugue,” in which the theme of the relationship betweenman and God is developed, contrapuntally, by the Pla-tonists of the European Islamic heritage, and their Chris-tian humanist interlocutors. Such should be the spirit ofecumenical dialogue today.

NOTES

1. Quoted in Franz Wördemann, Die Beute gehört Allah: DieGeschichte der Araber in Spanien (Munich: Piper, 1985). The authordoes not give the source of this contemporary chronicle.

2. Adolf Friedrich Graf von Schack, Poesie und Kunst der Araber inSpanien und Sicilien (Stuttgart: J.G. Cotta’sche Buchhandlung, 1877).

3. André Clot, Harun al-Raschid: Kalif von Baghdad, quoted in theBook of Taxes.

4. Schack, op cit.5. Ibid.6. English translations from A.J. Arberry, Moorish Poetry: A transla-

tion of The Pennants, an Anthology compiled in 1243 by the Andalu-sian Ibn Sa‘id (London: Cambridge University Press, 1953).

7. The dialect spoken by the Roman soldiers, which became the basisfor the various vernaculars of Europe: Italian, French, Spanish,Portuguese.

35

ENGLISH-LANGUAGE BIBLIOGRAPHYPrimary SourcesIbn Khaldun, The Muqaddinah, An Introduction to History

(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1989).Poems of Arab Andalusia, trans. by Cola Franzen (San Francis-

co: City Lights Books, 1989).Doctor Illuminatus: A Ramon Llull Reader, ed. by Anthony

Bonner (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993).StudiesA.J. Arberry, Aspects of Islamic Civilization: The Moslem World

Depicted Through Its Literature (Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan, 1971).

Anwar G. Chejne, Muslim Spain: Its History and Culture (Min-neapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, 1947).

__________ , The Arabic Language: Its Role in History (Min-neapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, 1969).

Thomas F. Glick, Irrigation and Society in Medieval Valencia(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970).

L.P. Harvey, Islamic Spain 1250-1500 (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1990).

Philip K. Hitti, The Arabs, A Short History (Washington, D.C.:Regnery Publishing, 1996; 1943).

A.H. Hourani and M.S. Stern, The Islamic City (London:Oxford University Press, 1970).

James Kritzeck, Anthology of Islamic Literature, From the Riseof Islam to Modern Times (New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston, 1964).

A. Lane, Early Islamic Poetry (London: 1942).Maria Rosa Menocal, The Arabic Role in Medieval Literary His-

tory: A Forgotten Heritage (Philadelphia: University of Penn-sylvania Press, 1987).

Hisham Nashabe, Muslim Educational Institutions (Beirut:Libraire du Liban, 1989).

A.R. Nykl, Hispano-Arabic Poetry and Its Relations with the OldProvençal Toubadors (Baltimore: J.H. Furst Co., 1946).

W. Montgomery Watt, A History of Islamic Spain (Edinburgh:University of Edinburgh Press, 1965).

__________ , The Influence of Islam on Medieval Europe (Edin-burgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 1972).

s

36

In March of this year, I received with appreciation aninvitation from my dear friend President Aznar inMarch of this year, to speak to you at the inaugural

deliberations of the third annual meeting of the Forumon “The Impact of Enlarging the European Union on theEuro-Mediterranean Process.” . . . In addressing this top-ic, I cannot miss a number of international and regionaldevelopments that have taken place since I accepted thisinvitation early this year. These events will, undoubtedly,reflect on the progress to be achieved in the future in theEuro-Mediterranean process. Particularly, the September11 events in the United States, have deeply shaken thehearts of each and every one of us, and have created newinternational conditions and implications that need to beexamined and taken into consideration. Add to this thesituation in the Middle East that continues to deteriorateday after day, without the least glimpse of hope of reach-ing in the near future a peaceful settlement to the conflictthat has persisted for over half a century. . . .

Our discussions, particularly at this stage, should beguided by a clear vision of our joint objectives of beefingup elements of integration and unity, in the face of thoseof separation and division. We need also to stress existingintegration and mutual understanding between civiliza-tions, in the face of advocates of inter-civilization clash.We should also bolster the use of all religions for support-

ing elements of tolerance and love, against those of eviland aggression, and for elevating noble and sublimehuman values so high as to prevail over constrictednational interests. Thus, we would be establishing forourselves and for the generations to come, underpinningsfor a new World order that we had aspired to achieve bythe dawn of the new millennium, which will hopefullybring to all of us prosperity, stability, and peace. . . .

The Arab-Israeli Conflict[D]ebates on the political and security aspects of theEuro-Mediterranean process at all levels have revealedthe pivotal importance of achieving a peaceful settlementto the Arab-Israeli conflict necessary to bring about therequired political and socio-economic integrationbetween East and South Mediterranean countries. Thiswould eventually push the Euro-Mediterranean processtowards new, wider horizons.

Within this framework, Europe has already exertedintensive efforts over years, with a view to reaching acomprehensive settlement based on international legiti-macy and justice. These, together with concomitant andconsistent American, Russian, and United Nationsendeavors, had led to the convening in 1991 of theMadrid Peace Conference, that adopted the Madrid

Stress Mutual Understanding In the Face of Inter-Civilization Clash

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DIALOGUE

Mohammad Hosni MubarakPresident of the Arab Republic of Egypt

Egyptian President Mohammad Hosni Mubarak addressed the Formentor Forum in Spain, on Nov. 2 , 2001,making proposals for a Middle East peace, and for a dialogue of civilizations. Speaking on the tenth anniversaryof the Madrid peace conference, in the context of the European-Mediterranean dialogue, Mubarak made clearthat peace could be achieved if the Mitchell Commission Report recommendations were implemented. The lastpart of President Mubarak’s speech was dedicated to documenting how Islamic-Arab culture has played apositive role in European civilization. Subheads have been added to the excerpts which follow.

DIALOGUEOf

CIVILIZATIONSA Symposium

37

terms of reference, based on the principle of “Land forPeace” and relevant Security Council resolutions, primar-ily Resolutions 242, 338, and 425.

Today, ten years after the Madrid Peace Conference,our responsibility calls on us to identify causes underlyingthe dramatic deterioration of the peace process in a man-ner that would negatively affect the overall climate with-in the Mediterranean region and will consequently reflecton Euro-Mediterranean cooperation, as well as on the sit-uation within the European Union member countriesthemselves.

On the Palestinian track, there arose several factorsconducive to the current deterioration of the peaceprocess. These can summed be up in the following:

First: Different approaches by successive Israeli lead-ers to peace as a strategic goal requiring commitment tomutual obligations as well as sacrifices in order to acquiregains and to realize sublime goals.

In spite of late [Israeli] Prime Minister Rabin’s pro-found political vision of peace and his bold steps towardachieving a comprehensive settlement—for all this, he,together with Prime Minister Shimon Peres, are deemedas ever the most conscious among Israeli prime ministersof the importance of peace for his country and for theregion. Nevertheless, his assassination has made succeed-ing prime ministers reluctant to adopt moderate stances.Hence, they gave in to domestic Israeli reactions to cer-tain acts of violence here and there, without focussing onthe main objective goal of achieving peace and stability.

This has resulted in reluctance by Israel to fulfill itscommitments as stipulated in the Oslo, Wye River, andthe first Sharm El Sheikh signed agreements, under avariety of political and security pretexts. Moreover, itintentionally allowed certain events offensive to religiousfeelings to take place, thus sparking the second Palestin-ian uprising “Intifada.”

Second: There exists an erratic lack of recognition ofthe Palestinian Authority’s limit of powers in negotia-tions, particularly relating to Islamic sanctities, to whichthe hearts and souls of each and every Muslim all overthe world are attached, on top of which is the status ofthe Old City of Jerusalem and al-Haram al-Sharif inparticular.

Israel has sought to persuade the public opinion in theU.S.A. and Europe that [Palestinian Authority] PresidentArafat, by not accepting Israeli sovereignty over al-Haram al-Sharif, has wasted an historic chance to reach asettlement during the second Camp David summit. Itsought also to use this to intimate that President Arafat iseither unwilling or incapable of reaching a settlement.

However, to be honest, I must admit that PresidentArafat was not in a position to accept this part of the set-

tlement in light of the Arab and Islamic rejection ofgranting sovereignty to Israel over the entire EastJerusalem, being a part of the Arab territories occupiedsince 1967, including sovereignty over Islamic sanctities.

In addressing this point, I speak not out of bias to oneparty against the other, but rather out of a belief in thesensitive nature of any subject that touches on religionsand holy places. Mishandling such issues could onlyignite latent deep feelings of antagonism, from which wecould all suffer for many years to come. . . .

Fifth: The entire world community sees that the wayout of the present dilemma of the peace process lies in thehonest implementation of the Mitchell Report. Thisreport contains a significant number of mutual obliga-tions that, if carried out by both parties without dictatingunworkable conditions, could lead to a concrete break-through. This would eventually bring about security toIsraeli citizens inside their own state, in return for theestablishment of a sovereign Palestinian state that alsoenjoys security and stability.

It should be emphasized that it is a gross mistake tomaintain that the September 11 events were the outcomeof difficulties encountered in the Middle East peaceprocess, or a result of the support of the U.S.A. to Israel.However, the deterioration of the peace process down tothe current regrettable level and lack of active interna-tional leadership of the peace process for one reason oranother, have created a public opinion that is antagonisticto the peace process in the Arab street. This is clearlyreflected in the form of harsh criticisms of the decision byArab leaders to adopt peace as a strategic option at a timewhen present Israeli practices and policies can never any-how be interpreted as a genuine orientation towardpeace. . . .

Combatting TerrorismMoving to Euro-Mediterranean cooperation in terms ofsecurity, I find it necessary to talk about the sorrowfulevents of the September 11 . . . .

Upon tackling this subject, I speak out of a bitter expe-rience endured by Egypt in its war against terrorism,which had started long before the September 11 inci-dents. From that experience, we have learned that terror-ism should be confronted with vigor and determinationwithin the bounds of legitimacy and respect of law.

Thus, Egypt did not hesitate for a second to join inter-national efforts against terrorism in the wake of theattack on New York and Washington. This stems fromour belief in the importance of forming a united interna-tional front that stands against the evils of terrorism andprevent it from attaining its objectives. Within the same

context, Egypt has supported international moves by theU.S.A. and U.K. to combat terrorism.

Within the framework of our international efforts tocombat terrorism and eliminate all its strongholds, weshould always take into consideration a number of factorsthat could augment our chances of success, foremost ofwhich are:

First: The need to convene an international conferenceon combating terrorism under the auspices of the U.N.,in order conclude an international treaty involving strictprocedures geared to agree on an all-inclusive definitionof international terrorism, to prohibit provision offinance, assistance, safe haven, or political asylum to ter-rorists for one reason or another. This is what we shouldall seek to achieve in due course, after addressing theimmediate consequences of the September 11 events.

Second: The extreme importance of coupling ourefforts in combating international terrorism with inten-sive efforts to address its underlying causes, such as feel-ings of injustice, coercion, inequity, and adoption of dou-ble standards for political, economic or social considera-tions. . . .

Islamic Culture and European Civilization[Addressing closer European Union-Mediterranean rela-tions, President Mubarak said they would] . . . enrich thejoint experience of all parties to the Barcelona Process andwill enhance mutual understanding of our respective cul-tural and humanitarian idiosyncrasies, including our tra-ditions, habits, and values handed down over the years.

Undoubtedly, the rich historic background of eachand every one of us reveals a mutual belief in the unity ofvalues and cultures among people, and refutes claims ofinter-civilization conflict or clash. Such concepts emanatefrom erratic perceptions and a false sense by others of thesuperiority of this or that civilization. Together withungrounded theories and concepts of the overridingsuperiority of a specific race over others, [such concepts]are obsolete and outdated.

We should not allow them to make distinctionsbetween one human being and another. Nor should welet them take us back to the Dark Ages, where humanbeings were torn between a strong urge to achieveprogress, on one hand, and attempts by some to yield tobackward theories that have no basis in science, religion,or rational thinking, on the other. These concepts, rather,stem from calls based on ignorance and rejection of theother, simply on grounds of difference in belief or meansof achieving progress.

It may be quite opportune these days to recall to mem-ory those bright eras of flourishing civilizations where

man could soar to higher levels of intellectual and scien-tific advancement.

Man had then realized that human civilization wasone and the same, no matter how different its sourcesand components were. Man also grasped the historicalfact, which proved for us all that whatever advances andprogress man scored in a specific region, would add up tohuman heritage that is composed of interwoven andcumulative layers, eventually making up this firm-grounded structure of culture and civilization.

Our understanding of such relations between civiliza-tions stems from the basic principles of Islam, that con-siders belief in former Divine Messages as a prerequisitefor sound faith in Islam. In the Holy Qur’an, AllahAlmighty says, “The messenger believeth in that whichhath been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do)the believers. Each one believeth in Allah and His angelsand His scriptures and His messengers, we make no dis-tinction between any of his messengers.” The HolyQur’an also confirms that religion can never serve asgrounds for clash, by saying, “There is no compulsion inreligion. The right direction is henceforth distinct fromerror.” This also shows that relationships among civiliza-tions and nations are one of dialogue rather than one ofconflict, as shown by the following verses, “O mankind,Lo! We have created you male and female, and havemade you nations and tribes that ye may know oneanother.” And, “Argue ye not [with the People of theScripture] except in the better ways.” Thus, from a prop-er Islamic perspective, Muslims’ belief in the universalityof Islam does not imply the exclusive singularity ofIslamic civilization in the world, nor its supremacy overother civilizations.

It rather means interaction with these civilizations,and emphasis that plurality of civilizations and diversityof cultures are the normal state of affairs.

This Islamic concept of universality is based on the factthat plurality, diversity, and variance are the rule and thelaw and that interaction with other civilizations is the prop-er median position between isolation and subordination.

The experience of history confirms this vision that wemuch cherish, in identifying relations between civiliza-tions. The Arab Islamic civilization rose not to supersede,but rather to complement and advance oriental heritage.

Islam and Greek Philosophical ThoughtIn this context, Islam was influenced by Greek philo-sophical thought. The center of gravity for civilizationhad started to turn toward Europe during the MiddleAges, only after the Greek heritage had moved therethrough exactly Arab intermediation.

38

39

Probably, the most important factor that had madesuch influence possible was, that Arab Islamic civilizationdid not only preserve the Greek heritage, but also,through blending Greek philosophical thought withprinciples of Islamic religion, did give the Greek heritagesuch forms that made it easily acceptable to ChristianEurope.

This resulted in the reactivation of European philoso-phy on grounds of advanced Greek thought, making cul-tural and intellectual advancement possible. The influ-ence of Arab Islamic civilization was not exclusively con-fined to this philosophical aspect, but rather extended toother branches of Western civilization—in mathematics,physics, and medicine.

This made the age of the European Renaissance reflect,in turn, Arab Islamic influences already recorded and doc-umented by many scholars of civilization and historians.

It is a source of our great pleasure in this context, thatMuslims had not been solely the upholders of advance-ment in our Arab Islamic civilization; as Christians andJews, who had lived under the umbrella of such civiliza-tion, made significant contributions to it.

This asserts the sublime essence of Arab Islamic civi-lization, far away from the concept of inter-civilization orinter-religion clash. Therefore, the current European civ-

ilization, from an historical perspective, was not solely anoutcrop of European innovation alone, but also a comple-mentary addition to oriental cultural and civilization her-itage running down for thousands of years.

In the same logic, ongoing pursuit by Arabs and Mus-lims to bridge the huge gap that keeps them apart fromscientific and technological achievements of currentEuropean civilization, should deeply grasp elements ofprogress entailed in European civilization, as well as thespirit of creativity and innovation, the ability to harnessnature in the interest of man, and the substantial contri-butions in many spheres to humanity at large.

Thus, the cycles of civilizations’ continuum are com-pleted and the right significance of relationships betweencivilizations over ages is entrenched. This wouldundoubtedly create an air of optimism among us all asregards both Arab-European relations, in general, andfuture prospects of Euro-Mediterranean partnership, inparticular. The Mediterranean countries have alwaysbeen at the heart of creative cultural interactions wit-nessed in East-West relations.

Hence, it is no exaggeration to say that inter-civiliza-tion dialogue has been a common practice by Mediter-ranean countries throughout their different historicepochs. . . .

A Call for ‘Dialogue Among Civilizations’

Seyyed Mohammad KhatamiPresident of the Islamic Republic of Iran

The high point of the United Nations Millennium Summit held in September, 2000, was reached before thesummit formally convened, at a conference on the Dialogue of Civilizations. Co-sponsored by the UnitedNations, UNESCO, and the Islamic Republic of Iran—whose proposal that the year 2001 be designated the“Year of the Dialogue of Civilizations” was adopted by the U.N. at that time—the conference was attendedby U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, as well as the Presidents of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Namibia,Nigeria, Mali, Algeria, Indonesia, Latvia, Qatar, Georgia, Mozambique, and the foreign ministers of CostaRica and India. President Khatami’s speech, as reported by the Iranian News Agency, has been edited forpublication, and subheads have been added.

The General Assembly of the United Nationshas only recently endorsed the proposal of theIslamic Republic of Iran for dialogue among

civilizations and cultures. Nevertheless, this proposal isattracting, day after day, increased support fromnumerous academic institutions and political organiza-

tions. In order to comprehend the grounds for thisencouraging reception, it is imperative to take intoaccount the prevailing situation in our world today, andto ponder the reasons for widespread discontentmentwith it. It is, of course, only natural for justice-seekingand altruistic human beings to feel discontented with

40

the status quo. . . . Today, in this esteemed gathering,allow me instead to begin with certain historical, theo-retical, and, for the most part, non-political grounds forthe call to a dialogue among civilizations. . . .

Persian thought and culture owes an immense debt toIslam as one of its primary springs of efflorescence.Islam embodies a universal wisdom. Each and everyhuman individual living in each and every corner oftime and place is potentially included in the purview ofIslam. The Islamic emphasis on the essential humanequality, and its disdain for such elements as birth andblood, had conquered the hearts of those yearning forjustice and freedom.

The prominent position accorded to rational thoughtin Islam, and the rejection of an allegedly strict separa-tion between human thought and divine revelation, alsohelped Islam to overcome dualism in both latent andmanifest forms.

Islamic civilization is indeed one of only a few worldcivilizations that have become consolidated and have tak-en shape around sacred text—in this case the NobleQoran. The essential unity of the lslamic civilizationstems from the unique call that reached all Islamic peo-ples and nations.

Its plurality derives from the diversity of responsesevoked after Islam reached various nations. Herein liesthe crux of diversity and plurality we observe in achieve-ments of the Islamic civilization: a single message inter-preted and understood in a variety of ways.

The Emergence of a ‘World Culture’What we ought to consider in earnest today is the emer-gence of a World Culture. World Culture cannot andought not overlook characteristics and requirements ofnative local cultures with the aim of imposing itself uponthem. Cultures and civilizations that have naturallyevolved among various nations in the course of historyare constituted from elements that have gradually adapt-ed to collective souls and to historical and traditionalcharacteristics. As such, these elements cohere with eachother and consolidate within an appropriate network ofrelationships.

In spite of all constitutive plurality and diversity, aunique form can be abstracted. On the other hand,World Culture presumes exchange emanating fromcultural agents belonging to disparate geographicallocations. Compared to local and national cultures,World Culture is a selective culture deliberatelyformed and abstracted from a natural set. This cultureis therefore intrinsically non-uniform and non-mono-

lithic, both in form and in content. It also lacks anyprimary or essential elements, and as such there canexist no cross-composition between primary and sec-ondary elements.

We can only hope to find a way out of this anarchyand chaos in civilizational form, through engaging allconcerned parties in a dialogue where they can exchangeknowledge, experience, and understanding of diverseareas of culture and civilization. Today, it is impossible tobar ideas from freely travelling between cultures and civ-ilizations in disparate parts of the world. However, in theabsence of dialogue among thinkers, scholars, intellectu-als, and artists from various cultures and civilizations, thedanger of cultural homelessness would seem imminent.Such a state of cultural homelessness, would deprive peo-ple of solace whether in their own culture or in the openhorizon of World Culture.

Examination of social and political aspects of the pastcentury has fortunately gone beyond mere critique ofpolitical activities of superpowers in the world. Regard-ing social theories and political ideologies as mere “narra-tives” has helped to [discredit] the excessively flamboyantclaims of some Twentieth-century political philosophiesand social theories. It is now aptly agreed that the exclu-sive claim of such ideologies to being “scientific” and“True” has indeed been arbitrary.

The notion of dialogue among civilizations undoubt-edly raises numerous theoretical questions. Especially,when we attempt to redress this proposal in an academiccontext for philosophical, anthropological, sociological,and linguistic analysis, problems become more acute. I donot mean to belittle such intellectual and academicundertakings. I would rather want to stress that in for-mulating this proposal, the Islamic Republic of Iran pre-sents an alternative paradigm for international relations.This should become more clear when we take compara-tive notice of prevailing paradigms of international rela-tions. It is incumbent upon us to find the grounds forreplacing it with a new one.

In order to call governments and peoples of theworld to follow the new paradigm of dialogue amongcultures and civilizations, we ought to learn from theworld’s past experience, especially from the tremendoushuman catastrophes that took place in the Twentiethcentury. We ought to critically examine the . . . glorifica-tion of might.

From an ethical perspective, the paradigm of dialogueamong civilizations requires that we give up the will-to-power; and [without] the will-to-empathy, compassion,and understanding, there would be no hope for theprevalence of order in our world. We ought to gallantly

41

combat this dearth of compassion and empathy in ourworld. The ultimate goal of dialogue among civilizationsis not dialogue in and of itself, but attaining empathyand compassion.

Two Ways To Develop DialogueEsteemed participants, there are two ways to realize

dialogue among civilizations:

1. The interaction and interpenetration of actualinstances of cultures and civilizations with eachother, resulting from a variety of factors, presentsone model in which this dialogue takes place.

This mode of interaction is of course involuntary andoptional, occurs in an unpremeditated fashion, and is dri-ven primarily by vagaries of social events, geographicalsituation, and historical contingency.

2. Alternatively, dialogue among civilizationscould also mean a deliberate dialogue amongrepresentative members of various civilizations,such as scholars, artists, and thinkers from dis-parate civilizational domains.

In this latter sense, dialogue entails a deliberate actbased upon premeditated indulgence, and does not riseand fall at the mercy of historical and geographicalcontingency.

Even though human beings inevitably inhabit a cer-tain historical horizon, we could still aim at “meta-his-torical” discourse. Indeed, meta-historical discussion ofsuch eternal human questions as the ultimate meaningof life and death, or goodness and evil, ought to sub-stantiate and enlighten any dialogue in political andsocial issues.

Without a discussion of fundamentals, and by simplyconfining attention to superficial issues, dialogue wouldnot get us far from where we currently stand. Whensuperficial issues masquerade as “real,” “urgent,” and“essential,” and where no agreement, or at least mutualunderstanding, obtains among parties to dialogue con-cerning what is truly fundamental, in all likelihood mis-understanding and confusion would proliferate, insteadof empathy and compassion.

Travelling of ideas and cultural interaction and inter-penetration recurs in human history as naturally and per-sistently as the emigration of birds in nature. Even theinauspicious and abhorrent waging of wars has some-times led to the enrichment and strengthening of the cul-tures and civilizations involved. For instance, as a conse-quence of war, “Great Books” of various civilizations,

such as primary philosophical, literary, and sacred books,have become available to other civilizations.

Translation and interpretation of texts and symbolshas always proved to be one of the prime venues for dia-logue among civilizations and cultures. Today also, schol-ars, artists, and all concerned should embark on amethodical re-reading and a deeply reflective re-interpre-tation of “Great Books” of various cultures and civiliza-tions of our world. . . .

It is difficult to make a transition from one to theother. One of the most arduous passages in the road ofdialogue among cultures arises when a party to the dia-logue attempts to communicate with another byemploying a basically secularist language in an essen-tially sacred and spiritual discourse. By secularism Imean the general rejection of any intuitive spiritualexperience and any belief in the unseen. Such a dia-logue would, of necessity, turn out to be absurd. Thetrue essence of humanity is more inclusive than lan-guage, and this more encompassing nature of the exis-tential essence of humanity makes it meaningful tohope for fruitful dialogue.

It now appears that the Cartesian-Faustian narrativeof Western civilization should give way and begin to lis-ten to other narratives proposed by other human cultures.Today, the unstoppable destruction of nature stemmingfrom the ill-founded preconceptions of recent centuriesthreatens human livelihood. Should there be no otherphilosophical, social, political, and human grounds neces-sitating dialogue but this pitiable relationship betweenhumans and nature, then all selflessly peace-seekingintellectuals should endeavor to promote dialogue asurgently as they could.

One goal of dialogue among cultures and civilizationsis to recognize and to understand not only cultures andcivilizations of others, but those of “one’s own.” We couldknow ourselves by taking a step away from ourselves andembarking on a journey away from self and homelandand eventually attaining a more profound appreciation ofour true identity. It is only through immersion intoanother existential dimension that we could attain medi-ated and acquired knowledge of ourselves, in addition tothe immediate and direct knowledge of ourselves that wecommonly possess. Through seeing others we attain ahitherto impossible knowledge of ourselves. . . .

Great Artists Should Get RecognitionIn dialogue among cultures and civilizations, greatartists should undoubtedly get due recognition, togetherwith philosophers, scholars, and theologians. For artists

42

do not glance at the sea, mountain, and the forest asmere mines and sources of energy, oil, and fuel. For theartist, the sea embodies the waving music of a heavenlydance; the mountain is not just a mass of dirt and boul-der; and the forest not merely as inanimate timber to cutand use. By excluding the artist’s “innocent” understand-ing from the political and social realm, human beingsfall down to the ranks of the tool-making working ani-mal. Such a being would surely look with disdain at thepossibility of dialogue, and any empathy or compassionthat may result from it. A world so thoroughly con-trolled by political, military, and economic conditionsinevitably begets the ultimate devastation of the environ-ment, and the eradication of all spiritual, artistic, andintuitive havens.

This would result in a dreary world in which thehuman “soul” can find no solace and no refuge. Theinevitable fate of such a world is nothing but nihilism.Rational thinking of the philosopher, the learned lan-guage of the scholar, and the earnest efforts of the socialengineer cannot suffice to remedy this nihilism. We needthe magical touch and spell of the enchanted artist andthe inspired poet to rescue life, at least part of it, from theiron clasp of death and to make possible the continuationof life.

Poets and artists engage in dialogue within andthrough the sacred language of spirit. This language hasremained safe from poisonous winds of time, and in thevery cold and merciless season of faithlessness it stillbrings us good news of original human ideals. It still callspeople to persist on the path of hope and faith. As somethinkers have emphasized, the present situation of manin nature is indeed a tragic one. The sense of solitude andmonologue and the anxiety rooted within it embody thistragic world. Our call to dialogue is aimed at soothingthis sense of tragedy. We do not want to trivialize deep-rooted and genuine human pains, nor to propose a super-ficial panacea for profound human questions concerningthe meaning of life and death. However, in the course ofdialogue, the way in which various cultures and civiliza-tions embrace and encounter grounds for tragedy shouldbeneficially be discussed.

In addition to poetic and artistic experience, [there are]mysticism, language, or dialogue. Mystical experience,constituted of the revelation and countenance of thesacred in the heart and soul of the mystic, opens newexistential pathways to the human spirit. A study of mys-tical achievements of various nations reveals to us thedeepest layers of their “life experience” in the most uni-versal sense. The unified mystical meaning and contentacross cultures, and the linguistic parallelism among mys-

tics, despite vast cultural, historical, and geographical dis-tances, is indeed curious. . . .

Let Us Ask Themis To Set Aside Her BlindfoldThe symbolic representation of Themis—goddess ofdivine Law and Justice—has already gained virtuallyglobal acceptance, as its statue appears on judiciary courtsof many nations. It is now time to ask Themis to removeher blindfold. Let us ask her to set aside the lofty scalethat currently weighs political and economic might as thesole measure. Instead, she should call all parties to anopen discussion in various domains of thought, culture,and civilization. She ought to look observantly at the evi-dence with open eyes, and by freeing herself from anyprior obligations, she should finally charge citizens of theworld with the task of making political, economic, andcultural decisions.

At the very same time that political organizationsand academic institutions consider and discuss variousaspects of the proposal for dialogue among civilizations,the dialogue continues to take place day after day as amatter of fact. In the domains of economics, politics,and culture, problems and issues rarely remain local andindigenous. We all deeply engage in making use of eachother’s cultural and spiritual findings. The penetrationof Eastern religions to the West, repercussions of West-ern political, cultural, and economic developments inthe East, and most significantly, the expansion of globalelectronic communication have all rendered dialogueamong civilizations a reality close to home. Gradually,these developments should penetrate to deeper layers ofour lives. As elements of World Culture seep through—and these should, of course, be deliberately screened—common underground water tables would form con-necting disparate cultural and geographical regions.The science of “semiotics” provides us with tools toexcavate common underground links and therebyapproach the “common language” that we need for anydialogue.

We should listen in earnest to what other culturesoffer, and by relying on profound human experiences wecan seek new ways for human life.

Dialogue is not easy. Even more difficult is to prepareand open up vistas upon one’s inner existence to others.Believing in dialogue paves the way for vivacious hope:the hope to live in a world permeated by virtue, humility,and love, and not merely by the reign of economic indicesand destructive weapons. Should the spirit of dialogueprevail, humanity, culture, and civilization should pre-

43

The Fifteenth-century Renaissance was the birth ofmodern European civilization, and the expres-sion of the noblest among the embattled forces

which, ever since, have contested control over the fieldwhich has been that civilization. In modern Europeancivilization since, we find nothing of crucial importanceduring the recent half-millennium, which is both goodand novel, which is not derived from that Renaissance.Everything of significance which occurred within Euro-pean civilization later, which was antagonistic to thefruits of that Renaissance’s Christian form of ClassicalGreek culture, has been a contribution to what is to befairly described today, without exaggeration, as the Dev-il’s own work. . . .

The central institutional feature of the Golden Renais-sance, is that it has been the greatest political revolutionin the known existence of mankind, the introduction ofthe principle of the modern European form of sovereignnation-state.

This Renaissance, when considered as a model politi-cal revolution, considered in all of its characteristic fea-tures, is the third great revolutionary development in theentire history of globally extended European civilization.For the first time in all presently known human existence, theentirety of the population of a nation was raised from the sta-tus of virtual human cattle, to a political condition, which, inprinciple, if not always in practice, is consistent with theChristian principle, that all persons are made equally in the

image of the Creator, and that the efficient promotion of thegeneral welfare of each and all of those people, and their pos-terity, is the sole basis for the legitimacy of government. Forthat reason, the Renaissance notion of the perfectly sover-eign nation-state, has been the dividing line betweengood and evil, both in and outside the churches, eversince.

Without the revolutionary change in religious belief,created by Christ, and spread by the Christian Apostlesand the martyrs, the creation of the modern sovereignform of nation-state would not have been possible. It wasthe passion embedded in Christianity which moved, andwas unleashed by the Golden Renaissance.

Three principal elements combined to account for thepossibility of this Renaissance.

First, the old, collapsed order was discredited, asthe system of “free trade” and “globalization” issoon to become an object of both hatred and con-tempt, world wide, very soon now.

Second, there existed a kernel of new leadershipqualified to inspire a growing number of others in arenaissance premised upon the Christian heritageof the Greek Classic.

Third, the principal qualification of those leadersof the Renaissance, was a relevant passion for cog-nition, as preferred over the relative sterility of

The Golden Renaissance And the Ecumenical Principle

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

This selection is excerpted from “Jesus Christ and Civilization,” an essay drafted on Sept. 22, 2000, in responseto Iranian President Seyyed Mohammad Khatami’s call earlier that month for the United Nations to designatethe year 2001 as the “Year of the Dialogue of Civilizations” [SEE preceding article, page 39]. The full text ofthis essay appeared in the Winter 2000 issue of Fidelio (Vol. IX, No. 4). Subheads have been added.

vail. We should all have faith in this triumph, and weshould all hope that all citizens of the world would beprepared to listen to the divine call: “So Announce theGood News To My Servants—Those Who Listen To theWord, and Follow the Best [meaning] In It” (HolyQoran, 39: parts of 17, 18).

Let us hope that enmity and oppression should end,

and that the clamor of love for truth, justice, and humandignity should prevail. Let us hope that all human beingsshould sing along with Hafez of Shiraz, this divinelyinspired spirit, that: “No ineffable clamor reverberates inthe grand heavenly dome more sweetly than the sound oflove.”

Thank you.

44

deductive method, as Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusatypifies those so affected and prepared, by cognitivelabor, for their role.

It were sufficient for our purposes in this report, tofocus discussion of the Renaissance itself upon those threeelements.

To appreciate the roots of that Renaissance, we musttake into account the continuing fact, that the curse ofmedieval and modern European civilization, to the pre-sent day, has been the legacy of the Roman Empire andits bestial doctrine of vox populi (e.g., “popular opinion,”“established customs,” “popular tastes,” “popular fash-ions,” “popular entertainment”). This is the evil of thepagan Latin-speaking legacy, as the case against it wasdocumented by Augustine.

In the history of European feudalism, the specificform in which this Roman imperial legacy persisted, was,most notably, both the influence of the zero-population-growth practice prescribed by the Code of Diocletian,and the continued imposition of that Code by the Byzan-tine enemies of Alcuin and Charlemagne.*

Thus, despite liberators such as Charlemagne, andsuccessors of Charlemagne such as the Emperor Freder-ick II, the feudal notion of “rule of law,” has remained, tothis day, that decadent oligarchical perversion of the late-ly discredited U.S. Republican Representative HenryHyde, or the brutish Magna Carta, the rule of feudal law,rule by globalization, by the legacy of imperial law, tracedfrom old Babylon through the Code of the Emperor Dio-cletian. That notion of an axiomatically irrational systemof “rule of law,” is the evil which we must act in concertto destroy, if the world is not to fall into a great new,planet-wide dark age, that of a duration of severaldecades or even much longer.

As typified by the life of Abelard of Paris, the politicalform of the great struggle to establish forms of societyefficiently committed to the principle of man made in theimage of the Creator, was concentrated in the issue ofeducation of the young, especially the education oforphans and children from the families of the lowersocial estates, notably boys from the urban populations. Ifnations are to rule themselves according to natural law,rather than fall into the immoral corruption of mere cus-tom (e.g., “tradition”) as such, where shall we find therulers qualified to perform that function, and the generalpopulation to consent to and support such a political andsocial order? This is not possible in a nation such as theearly English society depicted, allegorically, by JonathanSwift: a nation of Houyhnhnms and Yahoos, such as the

popular-entertainment-ruined U.S.A. is becoming today.All of the great religious teaching orders, the Augus-

tinians and others, like the Brothers of the Common Life,centered their work in this mission. In the most relevantcases, as Abelard’s battle against unreason typifies thisissue, the crucial point in educational policy, was that theyoung should not bend in blind obedience to the instruc-tion issued from the teacher, but should re-experience thediscovery and validation of those demonstrably truthfulideas which converged most nearly upon universal prin-ciples. In brief, the issue was that of choosing betweendefending “What I have been taught to say,” and beingqualified to state and defend ideas which one has discov-ered, and validated afresh, through acts of cognition,rather than learning.

Only one who has rejected such rule by mere learning,actually knows anything. This method for developmentof actual knowledge, truthful knowledge, is Socraticmethod; it is the method of docta ignorantia which LucaPacioli, Leonardo da Vinci, and Johannes Kepler, amongothers, adopted from the work of the intellectual founderof both the modern nation-state and experimental physi-cal science, Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa. It is the method ofthe physical science upon which modern civilization’savoidance of a new dark age depends without exception;it is the Socratic method upon which we dependabsolutely for those Classical principles of artistic compo-sition, without which effective cooperation in the discov-ery and application of universal physical principles werenot possible.

It was the assembly of a cadre of such leaders, typifiedby the case of Nicolaus of Cusa, their devotion to theSocratic method, and their passion for bringing intobeing a form of society consistent with the individualmade in the living, cognitive image of the Creator, whichmade the achievements of the Renaissance possible. Itwas the condition of crisis produced by the precedingNew Dark Age, which presented to that cadre the oppor-tunity to undertake such a magnificent work. So, in timesof greatest crisis for humanity, prayers may thus beanswered: and prayers in the form of “God help me to domy duty,” may be decisive in mustering the will of thebeliever to bring about the answer to those prayers.

The Ecumenical PrincipleOn condition that the representatives of Christian civi-lization rid themselves of the corruption which I havesummarily identified here so far, the Christian will, andmust evangelize accordingly, otherwise he is not honestwith himself or herself. If he is not honest with himself insuch matters, why should anyone else trust his good

__________

* Typical of that Byzantine corruption is the pro-oligarchical hoaxknown as “The Donation of Constantine.”

45

intentions? Thus, the expression of a certain truthfulquality of Socratic, cognitive, not deductive, passion forwhat he or she believes, on that account, may not guaran-tee the success of an attempted ecumenical dialogue, butthese Socratic qualities are indispensable for even themere possibility of success.

Nothing is more abominable in an attempted ecu-menical dialogue, than that representatives of differingfaiths pollute the attempt in such ways, as putting them-selves through the degrading spectacle of purporting tonegotiate a plea-bargain respecting their differences,from the vantage-point of mere “sensitivity to the feelingsof one another.” Such immoral plea-bargaining, with dis-regard for essential issues of moral principle, was thecause for the failure of the recently attempted CampDavid negotiations.

Nothing offends me more on this account, and justlyso, than that most morally degraded of all moralists, theone whose expressed commitments are not to truth, but,rather, to affecting sensitivity toward the “feelings” ofothers and requiring that the other should do similarly, inreturn. “If you say that, you will hurt my feelings,” has nolegitimate right to prompt me not to tell the truth as Iknow it, and am prepared to prove that my views on thepoint are truthful. To blame Chairman Arafat, that evenpublicly, for his failing to submit to the terms of a pro-posed plea bargain, may be lawyers’ standard currentpractice of positive law, but it is all the more immoral forjust that reason.

If the parties approach one another with the expressedview, that there is no truth, but only differing opinions,differing values, you must walk away quickly from thatconversation. Without a commitment to find an existingtruth in a Socratic way, common to all, there can never bean honest agreement.

For example, there are many persons today, who tellus that they believe that man is merely another animal,and that every imaginable sort of lower species has thesame rights which might be claimed for a human being.There are even well-known supporters of the candidacyof Vice President Al Gore, who insist that man is about tobe scrapped by “Silicon Valley,” in favor of a superiorspecies, “thinking robots,” so typified by silicon brains asalso, presumably, by silicone breasts. Toward such moral-ly debased opinions, toleration is neither required, norallowed.

So, a dialogue among cultures must draw the line,banning certain sorts of both outrightly lunatic and obvi-ously disgusting beliefs from the agenda. For a successfuldialogue, there must be a search for unanimity on someprovable universal principle, a principle of the sort whichis demonstrably embedded in the nature of mankind’s

relationship to the universe in which we live. The natureof those latter principles should be clear from the relevantportions of the discussion within the preceding pages ofthis report. What we must agree upon, is a functionaldefinition of the nature of man, as distinct from the lowerliving species, and of man as the only known specieswhich is capable of increasing its power to exist, per capitaand per square kilometer, in the universe.

As I have emphasized, a dialogue focussed upon theobjective of that sort of definition, is axiomatically Socrat-ic in form. For that reason, the functional characteristicof that dialogue is cognitive, rather than deductive orsymbolic. It can not be deductive, since the implied pur-pose of the dialogue is to detect and eradicate axiomaticassumptions which both divide us and which are demon-strably false.

Those indispensable observations on moral principlestated, what should be the objectives of an ecumenicaldialogue among cultures today?

The political purpose of an ecumenical dialogueamong cultures, should be centrally defined as theattempt to reach a common definition of natural law.The function to be performed by adoption of such adefinition, is to create a principled form of agreementon the subject of constituting a community of principlethus constituted among a group of perfectly sovereignnation-states.

The most essential point of agreement to be reached,as an objective of the dialogue, should be agreement tothree points: (a) a stated conception of a common con-ception of the nature of man, as I have elaborated thatdefinition afresh in the earlier portions of the presentreport; (b) the definition of the nature of the perfect sov-ereignty of a sovereign nation-state; and, (c) the implica-tions of the principle, that no government has legitimateauthority under natural law, except as it is efficientlycommitted to promote the general welfare of its ownpopulation and its posterity as a whole, and to fosteringthe same principle in the relation among sovereign statesso defined.

Apart from those crucial points of needed agreement,everything else of importance should be put on the table,so to speak, and that as frankly, as rigorously, and as pas-sionately as possible, even if agreement on such matters isnot reached presently, or envisaged for the immediatelyforeseeable future. By agreeing to disagree, in such afashion, we strengthen our agreement in principle,because we have understood one another, and one’s rele-vant passions quite clearly. So, the great MosesMendelssohn stated his adherence to the orthodox Mosaicheritage; so, it should be among Christian, Jew, Muslim,and others today.

46

On Oct. 24-25, 2001, an international conference took place at the GregorianUniversity in Rome, under the title “Matteo Ricci: For a Dialogue Between

China and the West.” The conference, which gathered experts from Italy andChina, as well as political and Roman Catholic Church representatives, wasorganized by the Italy-China Institute of Milan, to commemorate the fourthcentenary of the arrival in Beijing of the missionary scholar Father Matteo Ricci(1552-1610).

An historic message was transmitted to the conference by Pope John Paul II, andread by the president of the institute, Cesare Romiti. The speech was a passionateplea for a “dialogue of cultures and religions,” the foundation for a “civilizationbased on peace and love.”

In what must be considered an historic breakthrough, the Pope asked forforgiveness for the errors which the Catholic Church had committed in the past.Making indirect reference to the famous “Rites Controversy” [SEE page 50, thisissue], and in particular to the Nineteenth century, when Catholic missionariesoften allied with the colonial powers, the Pope expressed his “deep sadness for these

errors and limits of the past,” and expressed his “regretthat in many people, these failings may have given theimpression of a lack of respect and esteem for theChinese people on the part of the Catholic Church,making them feel that the Church was motivated byfeelings of hostility towards China.”

In his speech, the Pope presented the groundbreakingmissionary and scientific work of Father Ricci as a modelfor a truly successful dialogue among cultures. In hispassionate portrait of Father Ricci, the Pope pointed outthat the Jesuit father, with his famous monograph“Expédition chrétiennne au royaume de la Chine”(“Christian Expedition to the Chinese Kingdom,”published posthumously), was the missionary andSinologist who gave Europe its first profound insight intothe culture, philosophy, history, and geography of China.

Speaking of the benefit for the “whole humanfamily,” which the “opening of some form of dialoguewith the authorities of the People’s Republic of Chinawould have,” the Pope looked forward to the timewhen, once the misunderstandings of the past havebeen overcome, such “a dialogue would make itpossible for us to work together for the good of theChinese people and for peace in the world.”

An Invitation for Dialogue with China

DIALOGUEOf

CIVILIZATIONSA Symposium

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

/Pho

toby

Saw

Lwin

Pope John Paul II at the United Nations, October 1979.

47

The message of Pope John Paul II for the FourthCentenary of the arrival in Beijing of the greatmissionary and scientist Matteo Ricci, SJ, wasdelivered on Oct. 24, 2001. The Vatican transla-tion was taken from International Fides.

1. It gives me great joy to address you, distin-guished Ladies and Gentlemen, on the occa-sion of the International Conference commem-orating the 400th anniversary of the arrival inBeijing of the great Italian missionary, human-ist, and man of science, Father Matteo Ricci, acelebrated son of the Society of Jesus. My greet-ing goes in a special way to the Rector of thePontifical Gregorian University and the Direc-tors of the Italian-Chinese Institute, the two institutionswhich have sponsored and organized the Conference. Inwelcoming you, I also extend a cordial greeting to thescholars who have come from China, Father Ricci’sbeloved adopted country.

I am aware that this Conference in Rome is takingplace in a certain continuity with the important Interna-tional Symposium recently held in Beijing (Oct. 14-17) onthe theme Encounters and Dialogue, with special refer-ence to the cultural exchanges between China and theWest at the end of the Ming Dynasty and the beginning

of the Qing Dynasty. There too, scholarly attention wasdirected to the singular work of Father Matteo Ricci inChina.

2. Today’s meeting takes us in mind and heart to Bei-jing, the great capital of modern China and the capital ofthe “Middle Kingdom” in Father Ricci’s time. After 21long years of avid and intense study of the language, his-tory, and culture of China, Father Ricci entered Beijing,the city of the Emperor, on 24 January 1601. Receivedwith every honor, held in high regard and frequently vis-

POPE JOHN PAUL II:

‘The raison d’être of friendship is mutual need and mutual help’

Jesuit missionaryFr. Matteo Ricci.

The

Gra

nger

Col

lect

ion,

New

Yor

k

48

ited by men of letters, mandarins, and those desiring tolearn the new sciences of which he was an acknowledgedmaster, he lived the rest of his days in the imperial capital,where he died a holy death on 11 May 1610, at the age of57 years, almost 28 of which had been spent in China. Iam pleased here to recall that when Father Ricci arrivedin Beijing, he wrote a Memorial to the Emperor Wan-li,in which he introduced himself as a celibate religiouswho sought no privilege at court, asking only to be ableto place at the service of His Majesty his own person andthe expertise in the sciences which he had acquired in the“great West” from which he had come (cf. Opere Storichedel P. Matteo Ricci S.I., ed. P. Tacchi Venturi S.J., vol. II,Macerata, 1913, 496ff). The reaction of the Emperor waspositive, and this gave greater significance and impor-tance to the Catholic presence in modern China.

For four centuries, China has highly esteemed LiMadou, “the Sage of the West,” the name by whichFather Matteo Ricci was known and continues to beknown today. Historically and culturally he was a pio-neer, a precious connecting link between West and East,between European Renaissance culture and Chinese cul-ture, and between the ancient and magnificent Chinesecivilization and the world of Europe.

As I had occasion to mention on the occasion of theInternational Congress of Ricci Studies held to commem-orate the fourth centenary of Matteo Ricci’s arrival inChina (1582-1982), his merit lay above all in the realm ofinculturation. Father Ricci forged a Chinese terminologyfor Catholic theology and liturgy, and thus created theconditions for making Christ known and for incarnatingthe Gospel message and the Church within Chinese cul-ture (cf. Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, vol. V/3, 1982,Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1982, 923-925). Father MatteoRicci made himself so “Chinese with the Chinese” that hebecame an expert Sinologist, in the deepest cultural andspiritual sense of the term, for he achieved in himself anextraordinary inner harmony between priest and scholar,between Catholic and orientalist, between Italian andChinese.

3. Four hundred years after the arrival of Matteo Ricciin Beijing, we cannot fail to ask what is the message hecan offer to the great Chinese nation and to the CatholicChurch, to both of which he felt ever deeply bound andby both of which he was and is sincerely valued andloved.

One of the aspects that make Father Ricci’s work inChina original and enduringly relevant, is the deepempathy which he cultivated from the first towards thewhole history, culture, and tradition of the Chinese peo-ple. His short Treatise on Friendship (De Amicitia Jiaoy-

oulun), which had great success from the first editionproduced in Nanking in 1595, and the wide and intensenetwork of friendships which he constantly built up dur-ing his 28 years in the country, remain an irrefutable tes-timony to his loyalty, sincerity, and fellowship with thepeople who had welcomed him. These sentiments andattitudes of the highest respect sprang from the esteem inwhich he held the culture of China, to the point of lead-ing him to study, interpret, and explain the ancient Con-fucian tradition and thus offer a re-evaluation of the Chi-nese classics.

From his first contacts with the Chinese, Father Riccibased his entire scientific and apostolic methodologyupon two pillars, to which he remained faithful until hisdeath, despite many difficulties and misunderstandings,both internal and external: first, Chinese neophytes, inembracing Christianity, did not in any way have torenounce loyalty to their country; second, the Christianrevelation of the mystery of God in no way destroyed butin fact enriched and complemented everything beautifuland good, just and holy, in what had been produced andhanded down by the ancient Chinese tradition. And justas the Fathers of the Church had done centuries before inthe encounter between the Gospel of Jesus Christ andGreco-Roman culture, Father Ricci made this insight thebasis of his patient and far-sighted work of inculturationof the faith in China, in the constant search for a com-mon ground of understanding with the intellectuals ofthat great land.

4. The Chinese people, especially in more recent times,have set themselves important objectives in the field ofsocial progress. The Catholic Church, for her part,regards with respect this impressive thrust and far-sight-ed planning, and with discretion offers her own contribu-tion in the promotion and defense of the human person,and of the person’s values, spirituality, and transcendentvocation. The Church has very much at heart the valuesand objectives which are of primary importance also tomodern China: solidarity, peace, social justice, the wisemanagement of the phenomenon of globalization, andthe civil progress of all peoples.

As Father Ricci wrote precisely in Beijing, when inthe last two years of his life he was editing that pioneer-ing work which is fundamental for an understanding ofChina by the rest of the world and which is entitled, “Onthe Entry of the Society of Jesus and Christianity intoChina” (cf. Fonti Ricciane, Vol. 2, cit., No. 617, p. 152), sotoo, today, the Catholic Church seeks no privilege fromChina and its leaders, but solely the resumption of dia-logue in order to build a relationship based upon mutualrespect and deeper understanding.

49

5. Following the example of this great son of theCatholic Church, I wish to say once more that the HolySee regards the Chinese people with deep affection andclose attention. It is familiar with the significantadvances made in recent times in the social, economic,and educational spheres, as also with the difficulties thatremain. Let it be known to China: the Catholic Churchhas a keen desire to offer, once more, her humble andselfless service for the good of Chinese Catholics and ofall the people of the country. In this regard, may I recallat this point the outstanding evangelizing commitmentshown by a long line of generous missionaries—menand women—as well as the works of human develop-ment which they accomplished down the centuries.They undertook many important social initiatives, par-ticularly in the areas of health care and education, whichwere widely and gratefully welcomed by the Chinesepeople.

History, however, reminds us of the unfortunate factthat the work of members of the Church in China wasnot always without error, the bitter fruit of their personallimitations and of the limits of their action. Moreover,their action was often conditioned by difficult situationsconnected with complex historical events and conflictingpolitical interests. Nor were theological disputes lacking,which caused bad feelings and created serious difficultiesin preaching the Gospel. In certain periods of modernhistory, a kind of “protection” on the part of Europeanpolitical powers not infrequently resulted in limitationson the Church’s very freedom of action and had negativerepercussions for the Church in China. This combinationof various situations and events placed obstacles in theChurch’s path and prevented her from fully carrying outfor the benefit of the Chinese people the mission entrust-ed to her by her Founder, Jesus Christ.

I feel deep sadness for these errors and limits of thepast, and I regret that in many people these failings mayhave given the impression of a lack of respect and esteemfor the Chinese people on the part of the CatholicChurch, making them feel that the Church was motivat-ed by feelings of hostility towards China. For all of this, Iask the forgiveness and understanding of those who mayhave felt hurt in some way by such actions on the part ofChristians.

The Church must not be afraid of historical truth andshe is ready—with deeply felt pain—to admit theresponsibility of her children. This is true also withregard to her relationship, past and present, with the Chi-nese people. Historical truth must be sought serenely,with impartiality and in its entirety. This is an importanttask to be undertaken by scholars and is one to whichyou, who are particularly well-versed in Chinese realities,

can also contribute. I can assure you that the Holy See isalways ready to offer willing cooperation in this research.

6. At the present moment, the words written by FatherRicci at the beginning of his Treatise on Friendship (Nos. 1and 3) take on a new timeliness and significance. Bringinginto the heart of late 16th-Century Chinese culture and civ-ilization the heritage of classical Greco-Roman and Christ-ian reflection on friendship, he defined a friend as “the oth-er half of myself, indeed another I”; and therefore “the rai-son d’être of friendship is mutual need and mutual help.”

And it is with this renewed and deeply felt friendshiptowards all the Chinese people that I express the hope thatconcrete forms of communication and cooperation betweenthe Holy See and the People’s Republic of China may soonbe established. Friendship is nourished by contacts, by asharing in the joy and sadness of different situations, by sol-idarity and mutual assistance. The Apostolic See sincerelyseeks to be a friend to all peoples and to collaborate withpersons of good will everywhere in the world.

Historically, in ways that are certainly different butnot in opposition to one another, China and the CatholicChurch are two of the most ancient “institutions” in exis-tence and operating on the world scene: both, though indifferent domains—one in the political and social, theother in the religious and spiritual—encompass morethan a thousand million sons and daughters. It is nosecret that the Holy See, in the name of the wholeCatholic Church and, I believe, for the benefit of thewhole human family, hopes for the opening of some formof dialogue with the Authorities of the People’s Republicof China. Once the misunderstandings of the past havebeen overcome, such a dialogue would make it possiblefor us to work together for the good of the Chinese peo-ple and for peace in the world. The present moment ofprofound disquiet in the international community callsfor a fervent commitment on the part of everyone to cre-ating and developing ties of understanding, friendship,and solidarity among peoples. In this context, the nor-malization of relations between the People’s Republic ofChina and the Holy See would undoubtedly have posi-tive repercussions for humanity’s progress.

7. Expressing once more my happiness at the timely cel-ebration of such a significant historical event, I hope andpray that the path opened by Father Matteo Riccibetween East and West, between Christianity and Chi-nese culture, will give rise to new instances of dialogueand reciprocal human and spiritual enrichment. Withthese good wishes, I gladly impart to all of you my Apos-tolic Blessing, imploring God to grant you every gift ofhappiness and well-being.

50

The apology by Pope John Paul II for the pasterrors of the Catholic Church in its relationswith China, and his appeal to Beijing to renew

ties between the Vatican and the People’s Republic ofChina [SEE preceding article, page 47], come at a time inwhich the Pope is playing a crucial role in the campaignto build an ecumenical alliance among the nations ofEurope and Asia, as the only alternative to the descentinto depression and war now threatening mankind. Hechose to make this historic call in the name of FatherMatteo Ricci, the Jesuit missionary who opened the firstsustained Christian mission in China in 1581. The Popedescribed Father Ricci as “a precious connecting linkbetween West and East, between European Renaissanceculture and Chinese culture, and between the ancient andmagnificent Chinese civilization and the world ofEurope.”

As I shall briefly report here, Ricci’s role was not limit-ed to his own lifetime; rather, his ideas have been at thecenter of every subsequent effort to build a true alliancebetween the people of Europe and those of Asia, based onthe principle of reason. As Lyndon LaRouche said in hisaddress to the Italian Institute for Asia, in Rome, on Octo-ber 16 [SEE page 6, this issue], an effort to build a worldalliance among sovereign nations can never succeed if it isbased on the mutual acceptance of each other’s opinions,but only through a dialogue based upon a fundamentalagreement on an idea—an idea of man as distinguished

from the beasts through the cognitive power of reason.Ricci lived by this principle, which flourished in Chinauntil, a hundred years after Ricci’s death, a Venetian fac-tion in the Church succeeded in turning the Vaticanagainst his ideas. I shall review this dark page of history,known as the “Rites Controversy,” to help readers under-stand why Pope John Paul II felt it necessary to extend anapology in regard to certain “theological disputes.”

It is most appropriate that this particular Pope, whoprofoundly understands the importance of his personalmission in the current crisis of civilization, reaches backto Ricci as the universal figure representing the dialogueof cultures so necessary today.

Ricci and the JesuitsThe Sixteenth-century arrival of the Jesuits in China wascertainly not the first contact between China and Europe,which goes back thousands of years. In the Middle Ages,Europeans, Persians, and Arabs traversed the famousSilk Road, many taking up permanent residence in Chi-na. The Muslims, in particular, contributed their scientif-ic knowledge to the Chinese, becoming the primaryastronomers to the court. During the Thirteenth-centuryreign of the Mongol Kubla Khan over China, Franciscanmissionaries from the West had followed the Venetiantrader Marco Polo to Cathay, establishing close contactswith the ruling Khan and extensive networks among the

Matteo Ricci, The Grand Design,And the Disaster of

The ‘Rites Controversy’by Michael Billington

DIALOGUEOf

CIVILIZATIONSA Symposium

51

Chinese population. But the Franciscans appear to havemade little attempt to learn the Chinese Classics—in fact,they appear to have been primarily a “foreign mission,”serving Europeans who came in following the Mongolconquests. With the end of the Mongol reign, the missioncollapsed without a trace.

Three hundred years later, St. Francis Xavier, one ofthe founders of the Society of Jesus, travelled to Asia.After a period in Japan, he determined that the Japaneserespect for and deferment to China on philosophicalissues, necessitated the conversion of China first. He diedbefore reaching the Middle Kingdom, however, and theopening of China fell to another Jesuit, Matteo Ricci.

Ricci arrived in 1581, and developed the policies thatguided the mission through the next two centuries. Hehad received extensive training at the Roman Collegeunder the direction of the German Christopher Clavius,who was an associate and friend of the astronomerJohannes Kepler, and later of Galileo. Ricci spent fouryears with Clavius, studying geometry, geography, andastronomy, including the construction of astronomicaland musical instruments.

What Ricci discovered in China was totally unlike theconditions that prevailed in the Americas, Africa, orIndia at that time. The Jesuits’ reports to Europedescribed a country with a civilization surpassing in

many respects that of the West, and with a greaterknowledge of its own antiquity. A century later, Europe’sgreatest philosopher, scientist, and statesman, GottfriedWilhelm Leibniz, reflecting on the reports from Ricciand those who followed him, reported:

There is in China in certain regards an admirable publicmorality conjoined to a philosophical doctrine, or rather adoctrine of natural theology, venerable by its antiquity,established and authorized for about 3,000 years, longbefore the philosophy of the Greeks.

Recorded Chinese history preceded the generallyaccepted date for the Flood. The question was posed forEuropeans: How could an advanced civilization, outsideof the Biblical history of God’s interaction with man, beexplained? To Leibniz and to Ricci, China’s history andculture stood as a monument to the truth of One God:that the mind reflects the perfect creation, and thus mustlead through reason to the concept of the Creator. Leib-niz recognized that China, by far the most populousnation on Earth, and enjoying a highly ordered civilstructure, must have achieved that population and thatorder through some identifiable means. He even suggest-ed that “Chinese missionaries should be sent to teach inthe aim and practice of natural theology, as we send mis-sionaries to instruct them in revealed theology.”

Jesuit missionaries like Fr. MatteoRicci and Fr. Adam Schaal von Bell(above) recognized that the coherencebetween the teachings of Christianityand those of Confucius, made Chinesecivilization receptive to Westernscience. Left: Beijing observatorydesigned and built by Fr. FerdinandVerbiest.

The

Gra

nger

Col

lect

ion,

New

Yor

k

Confucianism Is Consistent With ChristianityRicci quickly determined that Confucianismwas not a religion, but more like an academywhich existed for the good of society. Confu-cius was not worshipped, but the Chinesewould “praise him for the good teachings heleft in his books . . . without, however, recit-ing any prayers, nor asking for any favor.”According to Leibniz, the Masters, and one’sown ancestors, were honored in rites whosegoal was “to display the gratitude of the liv-ing as they cherish the rewards of Heaven,and to excite men to perform actions whichrender them worthy of the recognition ofposterity.”

Ricci was not hesitant to challenge the pop-ular opinion in Chinese society, especiallyamong the literati whom he was trying to con-vert. After years of studying and translating the Confu-cian Classics, he recognized that the attempt to syncretizeConfucianism with Buddhism and Daoism—a pantheis-tic conception of “Three Religions” which had been par-ticularly espoused during the Mongol reign across Eura-sia in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth centuries—hadgreatly compromised the teachings of the Masters ofantiquity. The teachings of Confucius and Mencius, heshowed, were consistent with the Christian idea of a FirstCause, God the Creator, Who created man according toHis own nature; but they were totally inconsistent withthe “All is One” animism of the Buddhist and Daoistsects.

Ricci wrote:

The commonest opinion held here among those whoConsider themselves the most wise, is to say that all threesects come together as one, and that you can hold them allat once. In this they deceive themselves and others, andlead to great disorder by its appearing to them that as faras religion is concerned, the more ways of talking aboutreligion there are, all the more benefit will that bring tothe kingdom.

Nonetheless, Ricci befriended and debated a numberof Buddhist and Daoist scholars, while consistently argu-ing against the acceptance of the syncretic “Three Reli-gions” dogma. He concluded that, if the Chinese wouldreject Buddhism and Daoism, and also reject polygamyand a few other relatively minor rites, they “could cer-tainly become Christians, since the essence of their doc-trine contains nothing contrary to the essence of theCatholic faith, nor would the Catholic faith hinder them

in any way, but would indeed aid in that attainment ofthe quiet and peace of the republic which their booksclaim as their goal.”

Ricci translated the primary Chinese Classics intoLatin, and wrote several tracts in Chinese that won himgreat respect and fame among the literati. These includ-ed a dialogue between a Western scholar and a Chinesescholar called The True Idea of the Lord of Heaven, andseveral translations, including Euclid’s Elements and sci-entific studies.

Working with Ricci on the Euclid translation was theremarkable Hsü Kuang-ch’i, known as Paul after hisconversion to Christianity in Nanjing in 1600, underFather Ricci. Father Hsü was also a leading Confucianscholar and official, and was granted the highest honorsas a scholar in 1604 at the famous Hanlin Academy inBeijing. He studied further with Ricci in Beijing from1604 to 1607. Besides his philosophical and theologicalwritings, he wrote a book on geometry, Similarity andDifference in Mensuration, looking at the Pythagoreanmethod as developed in Greece and in China. At hisdeath in 1633, he was considered the leading statesman inChina after the Emperor himself.

Ricci believed that his knowledge of Renaissance sci-ence was inseparable from his knowledge of the Christ-ian faith. He insisted that the leap in scientific progress inRenaissance Europe was not a “secret” of the West, butwas the patrimony of all mankind. The same was true ofthe emerging Classical tradition of music in Europe—Ricci presented the court with a harpsichord, and wrotecontrapuntal songs which he taught court officials to playand sing.

52

Left: The Chinese philosopher Confucius (551-479 B.C.). Right: In Europe, thescientist and philosopher G.W. Leibniz studied Fr. Ricci’s reports on Chinesesociety and culture.

Prin

tsan

dP

hoto

grap

hsD

ivis

ion,

The

Libr

ary

ofC

ongr

ess

The

Gra

nger

Col

lect

ion,

New

Yor

k

53

Just as Ricci found the Chinese of a moral dispositionto embrace Christianity, so were they willing and anx-ious to enhance their own rich scientific and culturalheritage with the scientific ideas and methods whichRicci and some of the later Jesuits had mastered. Ricciunderstood that the central issue was the power of cogni-tion as the basis for knowing things rather than justlearning things. He wrote to the Chinese: “Investigationusing reason can lead to scientific knowledge, whilesomeone else’s opinions lead only to my own new opin-ion. Scientific knowledge is absence of doubt; opinion isalways accompanied by doubt.”

Emperor K’ang HsiRicci died in 1610 without ever meeting the Emperor.His successors, however, established themselves as theofficial court astronomers and headed the governmentengineering bureaus. These positions were generallyunaffected by the fall of the Ming Dynasty and thefounding of the Qing Dynasty under the Manchu in1644. The first Manchu emperor, in fact, placed his sonunder the tutelage of the Jesuit fathers, for training inboth the physical and moral sciences.

This son was to become the Emperor K’ang Hsi,whom Leibniz referred to as a monarch “who almostexceeds human heights of greatness, being a god-likemortal, ruling by a nod of his head, who, however, iseducated to virtue and wisdom . . . thereby earning theright to rule.”

While K’ang Hsi was receiving this training in Christ-ian theology and Renaissance science, he also immersedhimself in a study of the Confucian Classics, with dailydebates over conceptual issues reflected in his diaries.This commitment eventually convinced the Chineseliterati that they could support K’ang Hsi as Emperor,despite his foreign Manchu heritage. After a series ofrebellions in the south were put down militarily, theempire lived in relative peace throughout his long reign(1661-1722), and China’s first international treaty wassigned, establishing the borders with Russia, negotiatedin Latin, with Jesuits as intermediaries.

In 1692, with K’ang Hsi established as a “sage ruler”and the Jesuits holding all leading positions in the astron-omy and engineering bureaus, the Emperor issued anedict granting all Christians the right to teach, preach,and convert throughout the empire, subject only to theRicci policy that Chinese scholars—i.e., civil servants—must maintain moral allegiance to the Confucian princi-ples, and continue to perform the rites and ceremoniesconnected to their offices. The eruption of the “RitesControversy” thus disrupted an extraordinary potential

to achieve what Ricci had identified as his greatest goal:the “universal conversion of the whole kingdom.”

The Rites ControversyThe conflict that led to the complete severing of relationsbetween China and the West was a debate that took placealmost entirely in Europe, and played a crucial role in theReformation/Counter-Reformation conflict that shookEurope and undermined the ecumenical efforts identi-fied with Leibniz at the beginning of the Eighteenth cen-tury. The public issues arose from accusations that theJesuits had condoned “pagan” practices and (perhapsintentionally) misinterpreted crucial Chinese terms rela-tive to Confucian views of God. But the actual target ofthe attack was the Grand Design which Leibniz and hisallies were creating to break the power of the Anglo-Venetian oligarchy, which vigorously opposed the dis-semination of Renaissance science.

The opposition to Ricci’s policies emerged from a fac-tion among the missionaries composed of Franciscans,Dominicans, and a few Jesuits. The Jesuit João Rodriguesfrom the Japan mission, visited China in 1616 with theintent of imposing a prohibition against missionariesteaching mathematics or science! Rodrigues denouncedRicci’s collaboration with China’s literati, insisting thatthe method used by missionaries in Japan (insistence ontotal renunciation of all “pagan beliefs and rituals” forChristian converts) must be applied to China and Confu-cianism as well. His argument that this “hard line” wasnot only necessary theologically, but also successful, wasundermined when the Japanese began severe persecutionof the Christians the following year.

Franciscans and Dominicans arrived in China in the1630’s, from Japan, the Philippines, Europe, and the mis-sions in the Americas. The leading opponent of Ricci,and the major target of Leibniz’s published defense ofRicci on the issue of the Rites (Discourse on the NaturalTheology of the Chinese), was the Franciscan Antonio deSt. Marie. The Chinese have the “gigantic presumption”to regard their sciences and “their so-absurd philosophy”as the only one in the world, he charged. “So the Fathersof the Society [the Jesuits] have gone to great pains tohide their errors under the cloak and guise of words witha heavenly tinge, whereas in reality beneath is concealedthe pallor of hell.” On Chinese history, he wrote: “Whatdoes it matter to our mission whether the ancient Chi-nese knew God, or didn’t know Him, whether theynamed Him in one way or another? The question iscompletely indifferent. We have come here to announcethe Holy Gospel, and not to be apostles of Confucius.”

St. Marie had arrived in China in 1633 from the

54

Philippines, spending only three years in China beforereturning to Rome to argue against the Jesuits. It shouldbe noted that the Franciscans and Dominicans pointed totheir success in the Americas in the conversion of wholecultures as proof of their method, demanding totalrenunciation of native pagan beliefs by all converts. Thatthis could be true precisely because the native beliefs werepagan, but that Confucianism was not, was dismissed asheresy. One exception among the Dominicans, perhapsthe only one, was the Dominican Bishop Gregory Lopez(Lo Wen-tsao), the only native Chinese Christian prelateof the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries. He agreedtotally with Ricci.

Venetian Efforts Go into High GearThe controversy remained largely a matter of theologicaldebate throughout the Seventeenth century. Efforts ofseveral opponents to draw the Pope into the controversywere side-stepped by the Pontiff. But soon after K’angHsi issued the edict in 1692 granting full rights to Christ-ian proselytizing, Venetian efforts to crush the missionwent into high gear. In France, the great statesman andnation-builder Jean-Baptiste Colbert had initiated poli-cies that resulted in a group of French Jesuits joining theChina mission in the 1680’s. But by the end of the centu-ry, an inquisitional investigation of a book published byone of the returning missionaries, Father Louis LeComte, was launched at the Sorbonne.

The inquest was run by members of the Jansenist sect,followers of Cornelius Otto Jansen, a nominal Catholicwhose “predestination” dogma echoed that of Calvin.They preached that all men were evil, with redemptiononly available through the grace of Christ, and only to asmall number, “chosen in advance and destined to enterthe Kingdom of Heaven.” The Renaissance was theirprimary target, because, they claimed, it had alienatedChristians from Jesus.

The Jansenists had become extremely powerful at theSorbonne, and to a lesser extent in Rome. They led a gen-eral assault against the Jesuits, with the China issue play-ing a central role. The inquest of the book about the Chi-na mission resulted in the condemnation of several cen-tral aspects of Ricci’s view on the Chinese conception ofGod and morality. The Jesuit author, Father Le Comte,in response to the charge that the Chinese were paganswho had no knowledge of the true God, asked how itcould be that “in an empire so vast, so enlightened, estab-lished so solidly, and so flourishing . . . in number ofinhabitants and in invention of almost all the arts, theDivinity has never been acknowledged? What of the rea-soning of the Fathers of the Church, who, to prove the

existence of God, have drawn on the agreement of allpeoples, arguing that Nature has impressed the idea onthem so deeply that nothing can efface it?”

As the fight in Europe intensified, the mission in Chi-na recognized that serious countermeasures were neces-sary. They decided to propose to Emperor K’ang Hsi thathe issue an edict in his own name clarifying the meaningof the terms in question and the meaning of the rites hon-oring ancestors. His response was unambiguous, especial-ly on the two crucial issues: There was, in Chinese philos-ophy, an omnipotent deity who created and rules over theuniverse; and the rites of ancestor worship were signs ofrespect, without any superstitious beliefs in spirits exist-ing in the stone tablets. As we shall see, even the authori-ty of the sage Emperor did not deter the opponents ofecumenical peace and development.

The agitation in Europe finally succeeded in persuad-ing Pope Clement XI, in 1704, to issue a Bull againstChristian adherence to Confucian beliefs and rites, and apapal legate was sent to China to further investigate. Thelegate was at first somewhat reasonable, and in a meetingwith K’ang Hsi was nearly convinced of the Emperor’sposition. However, in a second meeting, he was joined byMsgr. Charles Maigrot, the Vicar Apostolic in Fukien, ofthe French Foreign Missions, who fanatically despisedChina’s culture, its literati, and the Jesuits. Maigrot hadlearned little about the Chinese or their language, yet, inhis meeting with Emperor K’ang Hsi, he challenged theEmperor’s knowledge of the meaning of Chinese terms.K’ang Hsi was disgusted, and made clear that “the Doc-trine of Confucius was the teaching of the empire, and itcould not be touched if one wished that the missionariesremain in China.” Maigrot was banished for his insolence.

When K’ang Hsi later read the Papal Bull, he wrote:“On reading this proclamation, I can only conclude thatWesterners are small-minded. . . . Now I have seen theLegate’s proclamation, and it is just the same as Buddhistand Daoist heresies and superstitions. I have never seensuch nonsense as this.”

The demand that the Chinese denounce Confucian-ism in order to become Christian meant, that no scholarin any official position—including teachers—couldbecome a Christian without renouncing his position, andno Christian could become an official of any sort. To theEmperor, such a demand was tantamount to insistingthat his officials no longer be accountable to the moralcode that had guided the nation for thousands of years—the “constitutional” foundation of society. Adopting thenew, higher moral standards of Christianity posed no dif-ficulty—in fact, it was encouraged—but that could in noway be interpreted as being a rejection of the natural lawprecepts of the Masters.

55

‘The Devil Leads Men Astray’

K’ang Hsi banned Christianity after his meeting withMaigrot, but softened his position and tried for years tonegotiate a solution. However, reaction had seized con-trol of the process. A year after Leibniz’s death in 1714,a new Papal Bull reiterated the ban. K’ang Hsi, dumb-founded, asked the missionaries if they had failed toconvey his views to the Pope: “You have corrupted yourteachings and disrupted the efforts of the former West-erners. This is definitely not the will of your God, forHe leads men to good deeds. I have often heard fromyou Westerners that the devil leads men astray—thismust be it.”

As late as 1720, the Emperor called a conference of allthe missionaries and reiterated that for nearly 200 yearsthe Christians had preached “without violating any lawsof China.” He asked, how could Maigrot, “who did noteven recognize the characters, presume to discuss thetruth or falsehood of Chinese laws and principles?” Butin 1721, after a second papal legation made no conces-sions, K’ang Hsi changed his perspective. His writingsbegan to identify irreconcilable distinctions between Eastand West. By 1742, with yet another Papal Bull, any hopefor saving the alliance was finished. Christianity wasbanned, Westerners expelled, and China was cut off fromWestern science and technology. The Papal Bull was not

to be lifted until the 1940’s.The emperors who followed, after K’ang Hsi’s death

in 1722, maintained a few Jesuits in the court, but theywere reduced to the status of advisers, with little hope ofreopening the teaching and conversion process of eitherthe literati or the masses. Both China and Europe weresignificantly set back. One hundred years later, a weak-ened China was prey to an evil, drug-running BritishEmpire, which had emerged from the defeat of therepublican forces in Europe. The infamous Opium Warsunleashed a century of wars and foreign colonial con-quest. The Church, while renewing in some respects theeffort to forge ecumenical peace in the search for truthamong cultures, often played a role in facilitating thecolonial policies which devastated China for more than100 years, for which the current apology of Pope JohnPaul II is most appropriate.

Today, if the kind of Grand Design envisioned byLeibniz and Ricci is to succeed, the model of the ecu-menical dialogue of cultures between East and Westmust be reborn, in the spirit of Christian agape and Con-fucian ren.

This article expands on earlier work by the author, includinghis “Towards the Ecumenical Unity of East and West: TheRenaissances of Confucian China and Christian Europe,”Fidelio, Summer 1993 (Vol. II, No. 2).

Above: Astronomer JohannesKepler corresponded withmissionaries in China. FatherAdam Schall von Bell drew onKepler’s books in preparing hisChinese astronomical works.Right: Missionaries teachingastronomy and science in China,Eighteenth-century tapestry.

Cou

rtes

yof

Bay

eris

che

Ver

wal

tung

der

staa

tlich

enS

chlö

sser

,Gär

ten

und

See

n,M

unic

h

The

Gra

nger

Col

lect

ion,

New

Yor

k

56

The hope for saving the UnitedStates, and the world, from plung-

ing into a New Dark Age for a centuryor more, was gathered in Northern Vir-ginia over Labor Day weekend, Sept. 1-3, at the semi-annual conference of theLaRouche political movement in theUnited States. More than 800 politicalactivists, over 100 of whom were stu-dents, met under the auspices of theSchiller Institute and International Cau-cus of Labor Committees, to discuss the

immediate perspective for burying themurderous I.M.F. system, and creatingthe New Bretton Woods and EurasianLand-Bridge which Lyndon LaRouchehas developed over the last decades.

LaRouche, a candidate for theDemocratic Party Presidential nomina-tion in 2004, and his wife Helga ZeppLaRouche, founder of the Schiller Insti-tute, keynoted the conference. La-Rouche focussed primarily on the ques-tion of leadership, in particular, leading

the American people out of its adapta-tion to an alliance with the British loot-ing system, under the Franklin D. Roose-velt-inspired title: “You Have NothingTo Fear as Much as Denial Itself.” ZeppLaRouche took up the same theme, withstress upon the solution: the EurasianLand-Bridge project and the excitingglobal development projects which willspin off it, in order to revitalize theworld economy.

Honoring Amelia Robinson

The major secondary theme of the con-ference was the celebration of the life and

‘You Have Nothing To Fear As Much As Denial Itself’

U.S. Labor Day Conference

Lyndon LaRouche (above left) keynotes theLabor Day conference. He challenged theaudience to take leadership in today’s crisis.

Above: Schiller Institute vice-chairmanAmelia Boynton Robinson. Left: BaritoneWilliam Warfield leads choral celebrationof Robinson’s 90th birthday.

EIR

NS

/Stu

artL

ewis

EIR

NS

/Stu

artL

ewis E

IRN

S/S

tuar

tLew

isE

IRN

S/S

tuar

tLew

is

contribution of Schiller Institute vice-chairman Amelia Boynton Robinson,who celebrated her 90th birthday thisAugust. Mrs. Robinson, a winner of theMartin Luther King Freedom Medal, isthe Civil Rights heroine who opened herhome in Selma to Dr. King for the votingrights fight in the 1960’s, a fight she hadbegun with her husband Samuel Boyn-ton in the 1930’s. Her life and strugglerepresent precisely the kind of missiondedication to principle, and historicalaccomplishment, which LaRouche putbefore the activists in the course of theconference dialogue. The joyous birthdaycelebration featured Classical music,

including presentations of the NegroSpiritual by both professionals and ama-teur choruses of the Schiller Institute.

A panel discussion on the culturalconflict between bestial Southern Agrar-ianism and Classical culture, entitled“Defeat the Brute Within,” was theother major discussion point, supple-mented by many hours of dialogue withLaRouche on questions of organizingand strategic matters.

A Musical Celebration

In keeping with Schiller Institute tradi-tion, the presentations of Classical musicwere a major feature of the conference.At the birthday celebration Saturdaynight, the audience heard the SchillerInstitute Chorus present sections of

57

Speaking to an audience of econo-mists, diplomats, and citizens in the

German capital of Berlin Nov. 5, Demo-cratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyn-don LaRouche summoned the lessons ofworld history in support of his call forthe immediate creation of a new worldmonetary system. The current system,he declared, is beyond repair, and thehistorically tested principles of the sov-ereign nation-state, and the use of bank-ruptcy reorganization to protect thegeneral welfare, must be put into effectimmediately to establish what he hascalled the New Bretton Woods.

LaRouche’s keynote address to thisEIR seminar, which was entitled “WhatCan Be Done in the Face of the Financial

Meltdown?,” followed a short summarydemonstration of the growing systemicbankruptcy of the world and U.S. econo-my, and introduced a full day of discus-sion among distinguished panelists andan audience of approximately 120 people.Given the event’s location, LaRouche’sunique credibility, and the growing panicamong world policy circles over how todeal with the global crisis, it is certainthat LaRouche’s words reverberated farbeyond Berlin’s Westin Hotel.

The international dialogue currentlyunderway between LaRouche and lead-ing economic and political leaders wasreflected in the array of speakers whojoined him on the podium. Theseincluded Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Hankel,former chief economist of the Kredit-anstalt für Wiederaufbau (the postwar“Marshall Plan” bank for reconstruc-tion), and the former president of theHesse State Bank; Prof. TatyanaKoryagina, economist at the Institute ofMacro-Economic Research of the Russ-ian Ministry of Economics and Trade;Dr. Nino Galloni, leading departmentdirector at the Italian Ministry of Labor;and Dr. Kurt Richebächer, former chiefrepresentative of Dresdner Bank, andpublisher of the respected RichebächerLetter.

Lyndon LaRouche (left) at Berlin seminar. Panel includes (left to right) moderator Michael Liebig, EIR’s Lothar Komp, and Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Hankel, former chiefeconomist of Germany’s postwar reconstruction agency.

Berlin Seminar Urges Creation Of New Monetary System

Russian economist Prof. Tatyana Koryagina

Helga Zepp LaRouche

EIR

NS

/Stu

artL

ewis

EIR

NS

/Chr

isLe

wis

EIR

NS

/Chr

isLe

wis

Please turn to page 61

Lyndon LaRouche visited Italy inJuly, October, and November,

addressing numerous conferences andseminars organized around his proposalsfor a New Bretton Woods and EurasianLand-Bridge.

During July 3-5, LaRouche addressedconferences in Vicenza and Milan. In hisfirst stop, LaRouche was invited to speakto the Vicenza Chamber of Commerceon the role of Italy, and in particular itsNortheast, in contributing to the con-struction of the Eurasian Land-Bridge.The province of Vicenza, in the north-east Veneto region, is the third largestindustrial production area in the nation,and is typical of Italy’s highly industrial-ized north, with its diverse and dynamicnetwork of small and medium-sizedcompanies. LaRouche visited two ofthese companies, in a visit that was tele-vised regionally.

There was significant press coverageof the conference, with several newspa-per articles appearing both before andafter the event, and coverage on threetelevision stations. In particular, theGiornale di Vicenza published a longinterview with LaRouche on June 28.

In Milan, LaRouche spoke to twoseminars, one at the Italian-RussianChamber of Commerce, and one at theCatholic University of Milan. At the firstevent, on July 4, LaRouche was theinvited speaker at the prestigious Palaz-zo dei Giureconsulti in the center ofMilan, as a guest of the president of theItalian-Russian Chamber of Commerce,Rosario Alessandrello.

On July 5, LaRouche was the invitedspeaker at a seminar at the Catholic Uni-versity, organized by the Association forthe Development of Banking and StockMarket Studies. The seminar, “Towardsa New Bretton Woods: A Project ToSolve the International Financial Crisis,”was attended by 45 bank directors affili-ated with the Association, and membersof the University Solidarity Movement(M.S.U.), the student branch of theLaRouche movement in Italy.

Italian Institute for Asia

On October 16, Lyndon LaRoucheaddressed an informal seminar inRome held at the Istituto Italiano perl’Asia (Italian Institute for Asia), anorganization which promotes economiccooperation, cultural dialogue, andcontacts between Italy and all the coun-tries of Asia and of the Middle East.LaRouche told the participants, amongwhom were various Senators andDeputies of the Italian Parliament, thatthe world now faces a major strategicjuncture, the outcome of which will becrucial for the future of the humanrace [SEE page 6, this issue, for full sem-inar proceedings].

A Meeting at the Parliament

LaRouche visited Rome again duringNovember 20-24. This visit broughtLaRouche more into the public eye, ashis addresses to a number of meetingswith members of the Italian Chamberof Deputies and the Senate, were com-plemented by his participation in atelevision debate on “peace throughdevelopment,” which was broadcastlive by a regional channel, Teleambi-

ente, on Thanksgiving Day, Novem-ber 22.

On November 21, LaRouche ad-dressed a meeting organized by Tomma-so Fulfaro, coordinator and spokesman ofthe Associazione per la Sinistra (Associa-tion for the Left) at Palazzo Marino, seatof some parliamentary caucuses. Themeeting was attended by 30 representa-tives of the Italian Parliament, of variouspolitical and social groups, including thetrade unions and women’s organizations.Among the politicians attending were Dr.Nino Galloni, director of the ItalianLabor Ministry, and former Member ofParliament Tullio Grimaldi, representingthe Istituto per l’Asia.

Then, on November 22, LaRouchewas the main guest speaker at a TVdebate broadcast live by Teleambienteduring the weekly program “Meetingswith . . . .” Host Giuseppe Vecchio intro-duced the four speakers: LaRouche,economist and philosopher; Prof. Rober-to Panizza, economist and professor ofinternational economics at the TurinUniversity; Nino Galloni, director of theLabor Ministry; and Father Ulisse Fras-cali, president of the Foundation NuovoVillaggio del Fanciullo in Ravenna.

LaRouche Organizes in Italy

Trips Broaden Support for New Bretton Woods

58

Lyndon LaRouche (center), flanked by two of his fellow speakers at the November Romeseminar and on Italian TV, Labor Ministry Director Dr. Nino Galloni (to left) and Prof.Roberto Panizza (to right).

EIR

NS

59

High-level policy conferences inRussia were addressed by Democ-

ratic Presidential pre-candidate LyndonH. LaRouche, Jr., or his representatives,in June, November, and December.

On June 29, LaRouche addressed, forthe first time, an official hearing in theRussian Parliament—the State Duma—on the key points of his policy for reor-ganizing the world financial system andlaunching a global economic recoverycentered on Eurasian cooperation. Theparliamentary hearings, “On measuresto ensure the development of the Russ-ian economy under conditions of adestabilization of the world financialsystem,” were held under the chairman-ship of Dr. Sergei Glazyev, head of theDuma Commission on Economic Policyand Entrepreneurship.

In addition to Lyndon LaRouche,who was the first speaker at the hearing,the event was also addressed by SchillerInstitute founder Helga Zepp La-Rouche, Schiller Institute advisor Dr.Jonathan Tennenbaum, the Italian Sen-ator Ivo Torolli, Malaysia’s Ambassadorto Russia, and a series of top Russianfinancial experts and scholars, includingthe respected Academician Dmitri S.Lvov, head of the Economics Divisionof the Russian Academy of Sciences.The event was attended by some 150parliamentarians and government advi-sors, and simultaneously broadcast to allDuma offices, and to the Kremlin, byinternal television.

LaRouche’s Economic Science

On November 27-28, LaRouche’s eco-nomic science, including the EurasianLand-Bridge project, was the focus of ascientific conference held at Moscow’sVernadsky State Geological Museum.The conference, attended by 50 top sci-entists from the Russian Academy ofSciences and Dr. Glazyev, was spon-sored by the Museum and by theSchiller Institute.

The subject of the conference was“The Realization of the Concept of the

Noösphere in the 21st Century: Russia’sMission in the World Today.” La-Rouche himself sent a paper on “TheSpirit of Russia’s Science,” dealing withthe concepts developed by Ukrainian-Russian scientist Vladimir Vernadsky,specifically the “biosphere” and the“noösphere.” In this paper, a shortenedversion of which was read in Russianand discussed, LaRouche argues thatVernadsky’s assertion of the power ofthe cognitive human mind, a physicallyweak power, as a dominant shaper ofthe physical universe (the biosphere), is acritical contribution to the role whichRussia must play today in developingthe political and economic basis forEurasian development.

Dr. Jonathan Tennenbaum of theSchiller Institute opened the conferenceand gave a presentation during the firstsession on “Eurasian InfrastructureDevelopment and the Noösphere Prin-ciples of Physical Economy.” He placedLaRouche’s Land-Bridge proposal,which calls for a network of infrastruc-ture corridors in Eurasia and beyond, inthe context of Vernadsky’s “noösphere”concept, arguing that “these projectsprovide the most efficient means to

reverse the current ‘entropic’ degenera-tion of most of the world’s economy.”

After the two-day conference wasconcluded, Dr. Tennenbaum, and hiscolleague Karl-Michael Vitt, went on toparticipate in the annual AmbassadorialReception of the Federal AppraisalFoundation, which was discussing thedevelopment of financial relationsbetween European countries and Russ-ian business circles.

‘The Spirit of Russia’s Science’

Then, on December 14-15, theLaRouches once again visited Moscow,attending a conference held in memoryof LaRouche’s late friend, the Russianscientist Pobisk Kuznetsov. That sympo-sium pulled together a group of about100 top Russian scientists around thetheme “The Evolution of the Global Sys-tem ‘Nature-Society-Man.’ ” LaRouchewas the keynote speaker on the firstpanel, taking up the theme of “The Spir-it of Russia’s Science.”

Kuznetsov, a Russian and Sovietpatriot, a 10-year veteran of the SovietGulag, and a scientist famous for hisunconventional thinking in a widerange of areas of science and economic

Press conference, Moscow Press Center, June 28. Left to right: Lyndon LaRouche, translatorRachel Douglas, Helga Zepp LaRouche, Duma Commission head Dr. Sergei Glazyev.

Economic Science Studied in Crisis

Russia’s Political, Scientific Elites Hear LaRouche

EIR

NS

/Mic

hael

Vitt

60

practice, was the host of LaRouche’sfirst discussions with Russian scientistsback in 1994, when LaRouche first trav-elled to Moscow. Kuznetsov’s workwith LaRouche’s idea of “potential rela-tive population density,” led to hisdevelopment of a unit of measurementcalled the “La” (for LaRouche), a unitwhich his Russian scientific collabora-tors are using.

The symposium was held at theRussian Academy of Continuing Educa-tion for Teachers, and co-sponsored bythe Moscow Academy of Culture andEducational Development, and theSchiller Institute. LaRouche spoke afteran introduction by Prof. Yuri Gromykoof the Moscow Academy of Culture andEducational Development, and a reportfrom Kuznetsov’s close collaborator, Dr.Spartak Nikanorov.

Dialogue of Civilizations

During an afternoon panel, Helga ZeppLaRouche presented her October 2001appeal for a Dialogue of Civilizations[SEE page 4, this issue], which had beentranslated into Russian and was availablein several hundred copies. On Decem-ber 15, Dr. Tennenbaum addressedthe conference on the topic, “The Con-tent of Science Is the Process of ItsDevelopment.”

LaRouche addressed several otherseminars as well, including one hostedby Academician Lvov at the CentralMathematical Economics Institute(CEMI) of the Russian Academy of Sci-ences, where LaRouche’s presentationwas titled, “The Global Financial andEconomic Crisis and the Strategic Roleof Russia.” The LaRouches also hadindividual meetings with Russian scien-tists and politically active persons. OnDecember 13, they were received byMoscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov. Repre-sentatives of the media were in the audi-ence at LaRouche’s public events, whilethe popular Channel 3 TV program“Russky Dom” (“Russian Home”) tapedits own interview with him. TheDecember issue of the Russian maga-zine Valyutny Spekulyant (CurrencyDealer) had just come out, featuringLaRouche in an interview about theglobal financial crisis.

Amidst meetings with high-rankingIndian leaders during his Nov. 30-

Dec. 6 visit to India, Lyndon H.LaRouche, Jr., keynoted an EIR semi-nar at the India International Center onDecember 3. The invitation-only sessionwas attended by 35 persons, amongthem former national Cabinet ministers,high-level economic advisers, key intel-lectuals, and selected journalists.

LaRouche’s presentation was entitled“Growing Global Crisis: The WorldNeeds a New Monetary System.”

It has been 18 years since LaRouchelast visited India, and a major emphasisof his visit was to meet with old friends,many of whom are leading intellectualsand politicians in the country. LaRoucheand his wife Helga Zepp LaRouche, whoaccompanied him on this trip, had devot-ed considerable time to India’s situationduring the late 1970’s and early 1980’s,and had established a relationship withPrime Minister Indira Gandhi, who wasa leading figure in the Non-AlignedMovement. LaRouche had written aForty-Year Development Program forIndia at that time, which is still resonat-ing among the country’s intelligentsia.

On their trip, the LaRouches met

with two former Prime Ministers ofIndia, Chandra Shekhar and I.K.Gujral, and leading officials of the pre-sent government. On December 5, theywere officially received by India’s Presi-dent K.R. Narayanan.

Reviving the Sovereign Nation-State

The EIR seminar was opened by Prof.Devendra Kaushik, retired head of Russ-ian and East European Studies of Jawa-harlal Nehru University, now president ofMaulana Azad Institute for StrategicStudies in Calcutta. He called LaRouche“one of the most powerful thinkers of ourtime, for whom economics is not a subjectof money and finances, but a commitmentto the General Welfare and the CommonGood.” He also welcomed Helga ZeppLaRouche and her “tireless campaign forthe idea of the Eurasian Land-Bridge.”

In the discussion at the seminar andin the rest of the LaRouches’ many meet-ings—which included a seminar at theSchool for International Studies at Jawa-harlal Nehru University, India’s leadinguniversity—their hosts stressed howmuch their presence in India was appre-ciated: “Do not let another 18 years pass,before you come back to our country!”

Lyndon LaRouche speaks at New Delhi seminar. Professor Devendra Kaushik, president ofthe Maulana Azad Institute for Strategic Studies in Calcutta, is seated beside LaRouche.

India’s Intelligentsia AbsorbsGlobal Strategic Overview

EIR

NS

61

In late July, a Schiller Institute delegationvisited Beijing, where Dr. Jonathan Ten-nenbaum and Mary Burdman gave a sem-inar sponsored by the China InternationalEconomic Relations Association. Some 30people, including from the central bankand Bank of China, government commis-sions, leading economic policy-makinginstitutes, universities, and some senioradvisers to ministries, attended.

The Schiller Institute representativesalso met with members at several leadingpolicy institutes, with economists and oth-ers, as well as visiting the now-completedexperimental High-Temperature Reactor(HTR) project, and an institute engaged indeveloping water projects in China.

Schiller Institute Delegation Visits China

Schiller Institute representative Mary Burdman addresses Beijing seminar.

On July 24, addressing a crowd ofdiplomats and political leaders in

Washington, D.C. by teleconference,and world leaders over the Internet,2004 Democratic Presidential pre-candi-date Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., present-ed a clear vision: Without a shifttowards his leadership in the U.S., therewill be either financial collapse, or warby the end of 2001. In this, his fifth web-cast since the 2000 elections, LaRouchedrew on his own successful work withinternational leaders, toward the estab-lishment of a New Bretton Woods mon-etary system and a Eurasian develop-ment perspective, to provide a picture ofhow a worldwide recovery from thecurrent onrushing systemic financialcollapse could be put into effect.

The problem, LaRouche empha-sized, is that the international financialelite, centered in the Anglo-Americanmoney centers, is desperate to preventthat Eurasian development from beingrealized. Just as the London- and NewYork-centered powers managed to deto-nate World War I, and World War II,to prevent the realization of Eurasianeconomic progress, so this same group-ing today is willing to launch World

War III. The most likely detonator forsuch a global war would be the sparkingof religious warfare, of potential nucleardimensions, in the Middle East.

What we are looking at right now,LaRouche said, is the danger of the“guns of August”—a war danger whichcan only be stopped by the emergence ofa movement for leadership in the Unit-ed States which will reject geopolitics,and support a perspective for the generalwelfare of all people, and nations.

And where is the leadership to pre-vent such a threat to civilization?LaRouche asked. While there are signsof receptivity to the solutions in Asiaand Italy, for example, the governmentsof Western Europe and the UnitedStates refuse to address the crisis. At thesame time, the nominal leadership of theDemocratic Party is refusing to lead, andclinging to the anti-Franklin Rooseveltoutlook of the Gore Democrats and theDemocratic Leadership Council.

In fact, as was crystal clear to the U.S.audience, and to world leaders listening,LaRouche is the leader of the FranklinRoosevelt wing of the Democratic Party,who alone is willing to fight for a newfinancial system that will prevent disaster.

Webcast Warns of ‘Guns of August’Johannes Brahms’ “A German Re-quiem,” and a series of Negro Spirituals,presented by political organizers, and byvocalists Reginald Bouknight, DorcealDuckens, and Eleugh Butler. The high-lights of the evening, as usual, were thestirring performances by renowned bari-tone William Warfield, and famouspianist/vocal coach Sylvia Olden Lee.

The evening began with a children’schoir singing Spirituals from Mrs.Robinson’s play Through the Years; then,a letter was read from Rosa Parks, theCivil Rights heroine who refused to giveup her seat on the bus and sparked theMontgomery bus boycott of the 1960’s.A 20-minute slide show presentationabout Mrs. Robinson’s life was given bySchiller Institute vice-president Mari-anna Wertz.

Near the conclusion of the celebra-tion, both LaRouches spoke. “This is afine way to celebrate the life of a womanlike Amelia Boynton Robinson, done inthe proper style, by people who appreci-ate what she is and what she’s done forthe world,” Lyndon LaRouche said.Helga LaRouche remarked that, “toknow a person like her makes your lifeso much richer.”

ConferenceContinued from page 57

EIR

NS

62

Lyndon LaRouche addressed econo-mists’ conferences in Mexico, Peru,

and Guatemala during the second halfof 2001.

On August 2, speaking by videohookup from Germany, LaRoucheaddressed a seminar sponsored by Mexi-co’s prestigious National Institute ofPublic Accountants at the Service of theState (INCOPSE), and attended bypolitical leaders from eight Mexicanstates, as well as from several othercountries. The event was viewed acrossthe nation as a strategic intervention byhighly placed members of Mexico’sleading institutions, who rightly fearthat Mexico will soon collapse intobankruptcy, as Argentina already has.

The seminar, which lasted about twoand one-half hours, was entitled “NewAlternatives in View of the End of Glob-alization.” Among those on the panelwhich responded to LaRouche, were Dr.Hector Luna de la Vega, executive com-mittee president of INCOPSE; formerAmbassador and former CongressmanJulio Zamora Batiz; former nationalCabinet member Francisco Javier Alejo;and Marivilia Carrasco, president inMexico of LaRouche’s Ibero-AmericanSolidarity Movement.

In the audience were political, busi-ness, military, university, and trade-union representatives on federal, state,and local levels, as well as students, pro-fessionals, and journalists from at leasteight media, including radio, TV, andpress. At the conclusion of his presenta-tion, at least 65 audience members for-warded their questions to LaRouche.

LaRouche’s presentation was coveredthe next day by two major nationaldailies, El Financiero and Milenio, withextensive quotes from his presentation.

Peruvian Economic Engineers

Speaking October 2 by closed-circuitTV to a meeting of the Society of Eco-nomic Engineers in Lima, Peru,LaRouche addressed the question ofwhat must be done in the face of the

international financial crisis. In his 35-minute opening statement to the audi-ence of more than 200, followed by anhour and a half of questions, LaRouchelaid out the crucial measures which gov-ernments and leading individuals musttake, in order to bring the world out ofthe breakdown crisis of the world finan-cial system.

From the start, LaRouche made clearthat this depth of economic disintegra-tion is directly related to the deadlyinternational strategic crisis, which istypified by the murderous attacks on theWorld Trade Center and Pentagon onSeptember 11. This is a period of coups,violence, and terror, he said, where des-perate men are trying to save thedoomed system, and preserve theirpower—and when nation-states have torespond by moving to defend them-selves and their people. If they are notstopped, we face a spreading world war.

Guatemalan Economic Scientists

Then, on November 13, LaRoucheaddressed the Guatemalan Society of

Economic Scientists in a two-hourevent, which held the 70 persons pre-sent rapt with attention. Notables inthe audience included people from theGuatemalan government, diplomatsfrom Cuba, Panama, and the Domini-can Republic, as well as economic pro-fessionals from three universities, otherprofessionals, and members of theSociety. LaRouche concentrated ondemanding that these economists takeresponsibility for thinking big, andengaging their governments in thekinds of discussions required for estab-lishing a new, just world monetarysystem.

Guatemala’s economy is in shambles,devastated by the global collapse in theprice of coffee for producers, and thedemise of the U.S. as the “importer oflast resort.” The audience broke intoapplause when LaRouche said that theforeign debt had been paid several timesover, and were particularly thoughtfulwhen he emphasized that responsibilityfor what the future will be, lies in theirhands.

Dialogue with Ibero-American Associations

‘Economists Must Think Big In Crisis’

Officials of Mexico’s National Institute of Public Accountants at the Service of the State(INCOPSE) listen to Lyndon LaRouche’s video address from Frankfurt, Germany, August 2.

EIR

NS

63

On Sept. 21, 2001, members of the Hous-ton chapter of the Schiller Institute had

the great honor, privilege and sheer pleasureof spending an evening of poetry recitationand discussion with Dr. William Warfield,one of the great masters of the last fifty yearsin the art of poetic expression in both Classi-cal singing and poetry, proper. Also present,and adding a particularly lively and playfulelement, were the inimitable Sylvia OldenLee, renowned vocal coach and critic, andSchiller Institute vice-president AmeliaBoynton Robinson, in honor of whose nineti-eth birthday the following day’s concert wasbeing given.

The Schiller Institute poetry group pre-sented to Dr. Warfield a work-in-progress,consisting of a group of poems by WilliamShakespeare and John Keats, unified under asingle concept, which we had been preparingfor presentation at the annual Schiller birth-day-fest on November 18. The discoveriesmade in the sessions preceding, and especial-ly in that wonderful evening, constitute thesubject matter of this report.

Although the connection between thepoems at first seemed serendipitous, itbecame evident in the course of discussingthem—especially, how to recite them—that,although the authors were writing twohundred years apart, there was clearly adialogue occurring between Shakespeareand Keats on the nature of mortality, andhow human beings can transcend it. Thisbecame especially poignant in light of thetragedy of September 11, and the sense ofthe mission of sublime art with which Dr.Warfield had determined to go ahead withthe concert in spite of this. It confirmed inall of us the belief that above all, poetry andmusic must convey passion—passion whichcan only occur as a living, breathing ideafrom one human being, planted in the soulof another—or else they are but sterile, life-less words on a page, over which foolishacademics spin endlessly boring commen-tary. This manifests itself in recitation, inparticular, because it is then that the psy-chological blocks which prevent one fromconnecting with one’s own passion, and the

Dr. William Warfield, poetry recitation at Schiller Institute conference, January 1998.

An Evening in the ‘Simultaneity of Eternity’—with Shakespeare, Keats, and William Warfield

EIR

NS

/Stu

artL

ewis

64

fear of connecting with another’s,becomes apparent, and can be over-come. For this reason alone, the strug-gle is worthwhile—whatever the out-come—for it can only make us betterpeople.

Chronologically, the first poem wehad decided to tackle was the Keats son-net “After dark vapours have oppress’dour plains,” although its real beauty andprofundity were not apparent until we

had worked through the Shakespearesonnets later.

‘After dark vapours’

The first, “gut,” reaction of everyoneto this poem, was one of perplexed, yetoddly satisfied attraction. Try as wemight, no one could adequatelyexplain in the logical, deductive termsof everyday discourse, the strange wayin which the succession of images inthe last six lines seem to make sense, to“work.” On the face of it, after all, theywould seem to be in a paradoxical rela-tionship to the foregoing eight lines, oroctet, with its straightforward, albeitintensely beautiful description of thejoy in Spring’s eternal renewal. Therich sensuality of the image of the eye-lids playing with the coolness, standsin contrast to the increasing abstrac-tion of the images that follow, culmi-nating in “a Poet’s death”; an idea thatshould be mournful, yet here seemsbeautiful. Despite their diversity, all ofthese elements—“leaves budding,”“fruit ripening,” etc.—are momentaryglimpses of processes of change—moments we want to hold onto, yetsadly and inevitably, they elude ourgrasp. The concluding line, suggestinga hidden and subtle music, and thenthe passing of even the mortal life ofthe creator of the song, the Poet, onlyheightens the melancholy, yet is stillsomehow consistent with the wholewhich precedes it.

How do we reconcile this apparentparadox? Stated differently, how do wereconcile this longing for joy in thebeautiful, with the fleeting, temporalnature of everything in the physicalrealm? Is there nothing enduring andeternal? Although infinitely more couldbe said of this poem, it was decided thatit would be a worthy goal, to at leastcommunicate this paradox, by demon-strating the change occurring from thefirst, eight-line section, into the last, six-line part, slowing down to allow the fulleffect of each of the separate images tosink in, so that the mind could “hear”the paradox.

With this in mind, we resolved toleave Keats for the time being andrevisit our old friend, William Shake-

SonnetAfter dark vapours have oppress’d our plains

For a long dreary season, comes a dayBorn of the gentle South, and clears away

From the sick heavens all unseemly stains.The anxious month, relieved of its pains,

Takes as a long-lost right the feel of May;The eyelids with the passing coolness play

Like rose leaves with the drip of Summer rains.The calmest thoughts come round us; as of leaves

Budding—fruit ripening in stillness—Autumn sunsSmiling at eve upon the quiet sheaves—Sweet Sappho’s cheek—a smiling infant’s breath—

The gradual sand that through an hour-glass runs—A woodland rivulet—a Poet’s death.

—John Keats

“Poetry and music must convey passion!” Dr. Warfield sings Classical lieder at SchillerInstitute conferences in 1999 and 2000.

EIR

NS

/Stu

artL

ewis

EIR

NS

/Stu

artL

ewis

65

speare. It is worthwhile to interject herea relevant biographical note regardingKeats. He did, in fact, think of himselfas being in a dialogue with the greatcreative minds of the past, especiallyShakespeare, whom he regarded as hisguide and spiritual mentor; even whenaway from home, he never sat down towrite without his cherished portrait ofShakespeare hanging before him. Keatshad initially been inspired by the freer,less formal, more personal poetry of hiscontemporaries, Leigh Hunt andWilliam Wordsworth, but had come torecognize that, if poetry were to againachieve its noble mission to uplifthumanity to true freedom, it must com-bine the power of Classical forms andsubject matter, with this personal inti-macy that could truly move the heart.He called this, the “greeting of the spir-it”; the individual human psycheapproaching the infinite, the sublime,and making this process transparent toothers, so that they could re-create it intheir own minds. As we shall see later,the breakthrough represented by hisgreat odes, written toward the end ofhis short life, was the outcome of thisproject.

But back to Shakespeare. Whenreviewing numerous sonnets for inclu-sion in our program, several “poppedout,” as it were, because they so directlyaddressed the subject matter discussedin the Keats sonnet—namely, man’smortality, and the fleeting, transitorynature of seemingly everything in thislife. Two sonnets in particular, numbers64 and 65, are almost like bookends, oneborrowing imagery from, and partiallyanswering the paradoxes in, the other.Indeed, we decided to recite them as aunity, one flowing seamlessly into theother with no pause, although spoken bytwo different individuals.

Sonnets 64 and 65

Many of our one-hour practice sessionshad been devoted to how to recite thesepoems with the necessary passion andenergy to make the ideas transparent;and, indeed, Dr. Warfield addressed thismovingly in our discussion, by suggest-ing that, for instance, when saying thephrase, “When I see sometime lofty

towers down-ras’d,” we think of, andfeel the full emotional weight of the all-too-recent collapse of the World TradeCenter. This is particularly important,in view of the fact that Shakespeare’ssonnets are almost always recited in sucha dry and monotonous tone, or else in anartificial, meter-and-rhyme-dominatedsing-song, as to be virtually incompre-hensible, thus adding to the popular per-ception of them as the subject of stuffy,academic lectures, rather than the pas-sionate messengers to our souls theywere meant to be.

This difference becomes immediatelyevident in the first two lines of Sonnet64. If one reads these lines in the usuallifeless, formal way, stressing only the

Sonnet 64When I have seen by Time’s fell hand defac’dThe rich proud cost of outworn buried age;When sometime lofty towers I see down-ras’d,And brass eternal, slave to mortal rage;When I have seen the hungry ocean gainAdvantage on the kingdom of the shore,And the firm soil win of the wat’ry main,Increasing store with loss, and loss with store;When I have seen such interchange of state,Or state itself confounded with decay;Ruin hath taught me thus to ruminate,That Time will come and take my love away.

This thought is as a death, which cannot chooseBut weep to have that which it fears to lose.

Sonnet 65Since brass, nor stone, nor earth, nor boundless sea,But sad mortality o’ersways their power,How with this rage shall beauty hold a plea,Whose action is no stronger than a flower?O, how shall summer’s honey breath hold outAgainst the wrackful siege of battering days,When rocks impregnable are not so stout,Nor gates of steel so strong, but Time decays?O fearful meditation! where, alack,Shall Time’s best jewel from Time’s chest lie hid?Or what strong hand can hold his swift foot back?Or who his spoil of beauty can forbid?

O none, unless this miracle have might,That in black ink my love may still shine bright.

—William Shakespeare

66

syllables suggested by the text, the cru-cial germ of the idea to be developedlater is completely destroyed. The text ofa poem is, after all, only the footprint ofthe idea, like the score of a musical com-position, which no one but a lunaticwould mistake for the actual musicitself. For instance, the iambic pentame-ter, in which all sonnets are strictly writ-ten, would dictate that the word “fell”would fall on a short, or unstressed, syl-lable, yet to clearly convey the contrastbetween the lamentable ravage of Time,and the foolish pride with which wemortals pursue the things of this world,the “rich proud cost,” requires that “fell”be stressed, and heard in apposition tothat “rich proud cost,” so that it rings inthe ear. The next two lines amplify thethought of the lack of permanence inanything in the physical realm. The sec-ond quatrain, or four-line section, alsobegins with “When I have seen,” butsince a new idea is being introduced,that of endless, cyclical change, it mustbe stated differently, as if to say, “Okay,here’s another way of looking at it,another hypothesis.” But in the thirdquatrain, both of these ideas are treatedas equally discouraging; both say thattime, or change, will destroy anythingthat I try to hold onto, to possess, even

that which I consider most sacred, “mylove.” The concluding couplet must beread with great, and honest, feeling, forit expresses the darkest and most desper-ate thought that we can have—that itisn’t even worthwhile to possess theobject of our love, for we will eventuallycertainly lose it, or it will change.Warfield clearly recognized this, andpointed out that when one says, “Thisthought,” one must pause to let the fullweight of “this thought”—the entiretyof the poem up to this point—sink in.

Thank God that Shakespeare didn’tleave it at that! Sonnet 65 provides apartial answer to this conundrum, but aswe shall see, it is more fully addressed inSonnet 73, and really developed in all itsrichness two hundred years later byKeats.

Part of the challenge in reciting Son-net 65, is to make sure that the first twolines are heard clearly as the summationof the entirety of Sonnet 64, in con-densed form. This sets up the paradoxupon which this poem is based, namely,if Time destroys, or changes, all of thesethings, and beauty resides in the worldof the senses, how then can beauty sur-vive? The contrasting violence of thewords, “rage” and “wrackful siege,”with the tender vulnerability of “aflower” and “Summer’s honey breath,”heighten the sense of the hopelessness ofthe cause of beauty, if even “rocksimpregnable” and “gates of steel” can-not protect it. Dr. Warfield stressedhere, as he always does in the case ofsinging, the full enunciation of all theconsonant and vowel sounds in thesecrucial phrases. It is an aspect of Shake-speare’s poetry which is very helpful incommunicating its meaning, that hechose words whose musical qualities,their sound, are consistent with, andamplify, their idea content.

The third quatrain, beginning with“O fearful meditation!,” must be con-veyed with a genuine fear and dread ofreturning to the desperation of Sonnet64, and drive toward the seeminglyhopeless plea of, “Or who his spoil ofbeauty can forbid?.” If “O none” is saidin almost a resigned manner, it helps toset up, especially if there is a long pause

Poetry recitation at the Friedrich Schiller birthday-fest, a month after preparation with Dr. Warfield. Left: Susan Schlanger. Right: Commentary author Dan Leach.

EIR

NS

/Jam

esD

uree

EIR

NS

/Jam

esD

uree

at that comma, the ray of hope thatbreaks through at the end of this poem.Shakespeare even has a little fun, play-ing with the paradox involved in cou-pling “black ink” with “shine bright.”But in a deeper sense, the paradox is thatthrough the medium of the words onthe page, which to the senses are onlyblack ink, something beautiful andenduring does, in fact, shine. He isbeginning to get at the idea that,through love, which is not a matter ofthe senses, but of a higher, spiritualnature, we can, in fact, transcend Time.As we shall see, this idea becomes thesubject, in a more moving and personalway, of Sonnet 73.

Concerning the ending, Dr.Warfield made the point that the entirepoem as a single idea, including theending, must be in one’s mind from thevery first word, shaping and coloringevery phrase toward that effect. Onemust make the intention of the poetone’s own intention, and let that guidethe process, getting all ego or perfor-mance considerations out of the way.This principle became particularlyimportant in dealing with the challeng-ing problems posed by Sonnet 73.

Sonnet 73

Here again we have three distinctmetaphors in each of the three qua-trains, each denoted by the phrases, “inme behold,” and two of, “In me thousee’st,” reversing the direction of “whenI have seen” of Sonnet 64. The poet isnow contemplating his own aging andeventual death, in three successiveimages, each of a more abstract, morespiritual beauty, yet conveying a risingpassion, which seems paradoxical,given the rather somber tone of the firstquatrain. It is this cognitive passion, asthe soul frees itself from the senses, thatis the peculiar beauty of this poem, andwhich cannot be faked with merehistrionics. The first quatrain mustfully convey the melancholy idea ofAutumn, with its brief, suspendedmoment of introspective reflection aswe remember what has passed, and,although conscious of the coming Win-ter—perhaps, even, because of that—

feel a deeper, more profound sense ofbeauty. The second quatrain amplifiesand deepens this idea; for, what couldbe more fleeting, yet beautiful, than thesunset and the twilight which follows?The line, “Death’s second self, thatseals up all in rest,” heightens the para-dox, and must be read in a way whichis not morbid, for although directly ref-erencing death, in the context of thebeautiful imagery in which it is situat-ed, the phrase, “that seals up all in rest”speaks of a peace and beauty that is of ahigher nature, which invites the soulbeyond the physical.

What now unfolds out of this, the“glowing of such fire,” echoing the glowof the sunset, is truly a purer and higherkind of passion, because of what hasgone before. The fact that Shakespearecompares it to embers which will soonbe burned out, along with the fuelwhich nourished them, does not dimin-ish the sublime emotion we feel, espe-cially if “such fire” is read with anythinglike the poet’s own passion. The break-through represented by this poem, andthe way in which it answers the paradoxof Sonnets 64 and 65, is contained in theconcluding couplet. It is by seeing thebeauty of another human being reflect-ing that “glowing” of passion, and lov-ing that, despite the physical decay anddiminution, that a higher order of beau-

67

Sonnet 73That time of year thou mayst in me beholdWhen yellow leaves, or none, or few, do hangUpon those boughs which shake against the cold,Bare ruin’d choirs, where late the sweet birds sang.In me thou see’st the twilight of such dayAs after sunset fadeth in the west,Which by and by black night doth take away,Death’s second self, that seals up all in rest.In me thou see’st the glowing of such fireThat on the ashes of his youth doth lie,As the death-bed whereon it must expireConsumed with that which it was nourished by.

This thou perceiv’st, which makes thy love more strong,To love that well which thou must leave ere long.

—William Shakespeare

68

ty, transcending the physical, is consti-tuted. This kind of love, which seeksthis higher, eternal nature of Man, iswhat the Greeks called agape, and itsmanifestation in art is the sublime.

We shall encounter it as the explicitsubject, and in its most universal form,when we return to our friend, Keats.But it is important to reflect, beforeleaving Shakespeare, that his sonnets,taken in their entirety, are one, unifiedsublime work of art. What we haveinvestigated in just these three exam-ples, is but a mere glimpse of the uni-verse of intricate, interwoven ideas,which plumb the depths of the humanheart, and pose life’s most profoundquestions in metaphorical terms whichappear, reappear, answer, or partiallyanswer, these fundamental questions,over the span of the many years inwhich Shakespeare wrote them.Friedrich Schiller, in his “Naïve andSentimental Poetry,” wrote that Shake-speare, at least in his plays, is an exam-ple of a “naïve poet,” in that he depictsNature and the human heart as ifremoved and objective. “Sentimentalpoetry” is, for Schiller, that in whichthe poet’s own relationship to the sub-ject is evident, and it is through thatrelationship that we are moved.

Although Schiller’s discussion isdirected to the plays, Shakespeare’ssonnets, on the other hand, are one ofthe purest examples of sentimentalpoetry of the best sort, and point theway to further development of itspotential by Keats and Shelley.(Schiller himself pointed out that thesame poet could write in the naïve orsentimental mode at different times, oreven in the same work.)

If one now revisits the Keats sonnet“After dark vapours,” how much richerand more powerful it is! Keats, address-ing the same issue as Shakespeare, nowreverses the imagery which prompted thereflection. Instead of Autumn and itsmelancholy, it is Spring, with its fullnessof life and its promise. Keats passes fromthe sensuality of lines 7 and 8 to the quicksuccession of images of ever moreabstract beauty at what is called the“turn,” through the simple statement,“the calmest thoughts come round us,”indicating that we are going into a worldof thought, of ideas. Although volumescould be written on each one of theseimages, their overall effect, the ideawhich unifies them, is one of potential,living potential, caught, as it were, in amoment of repose. This is a recurringtheme in Keats’ poetry, to which hereferred in his letters, and is central to thebreakthrough he made with the greatodes, especially the “Ode On A GrecianUrn,” which we will examine later.

The reason why the image of “aPoet’s death” seems to be coherent withthe mood of this poem, why it has acalm beauty to it, as it did in the Shake-speare Sonnet 73, is because, when wehave been effectively transported intothis realm of ideas, we are aware, atleast intuitively, that the poet, or weourselves for that matter, don’t reallydie; we live through our participation inthese ideas, which share in the eternal.Keats spoke in one letter of a “brother-hood of the mind,” where people of alltimes meet, go down separate paths,then meet again. He was motivated byan intense desire to connect with thebeautiful souls who had gone beforehim, distill their essence into his ownbeing, and create ever more powerful

Poetry recitation, Schiller birthday-fest. “How do we reconcile the longing for joy in thebeautiful, with the fleeting, temporal nature of everything in the physical universe?”

EIR

NS

/Jam

esD

uree

69

ideas to communicate to future humanbeings. Although never using the exactterminology, Keats had an innate con-cept of what Lyndon LaRouche hascalled the “simultaneity of eternity.”This is nowhere better seen than in the“Ode On A Grecian Urn,” whichtogether with the other odes, representsthe culmination of a process of experi-mentation and struggle over severalyears to bring forth a new and morepowerful medium for this idea.

‘Ode On A Grecian Urn’

This poem represents, by far, the great-est challenge for recitation, not merelybecause of its length, but because of thepassionate tone, coupled with whatwould seem to be the most abstract sub-ject, at least on the surface. For the poet

pours his heart out not to a lover, or tolament some loss, but to a cold, deadobject, upon which are static images,created by some unknown hand, thou-sands of years ago. But precisely thereinlies its point: he states it at the beginningof the second stanza, “Heard melodiesare sweet, but those unheard are sweet-er.” It is the “unheard melodies” withinthe realm of ideas, which we can re-cre-ate over the ages, and through which wecan communicate with future genera-tions, which, despite being prompted bya physical process, constitute a higherbeauty than anything directly appre-hended by the senses.

Keats here, again, as in the sonnet,reverses the paradox which Shakespeareposed. Instead of lamenting the passingof beauty and the lack of fulfillment in

IThou still unravish’d bride of quietness,

Thou foster-child of silence and slow time,Sylvan historian, who canst thus express

A flowery tale more sweetly than our rhyme:What leaf-fring’d legend haunts about thy shape

Of deities or mortals, or of both,In Tempe or the dales of Arcady?

What men or gods are these? What maidens loth?What mad pursuit? What struggle to escape?

What pipes and timbrels? What wild ecstasy?

IIHeard melodies are sweet, but those unheard

Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on;Not to the sensual ear, but, more endear’d,

Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone:Fair youth, beneath the trees, thou canst not leave

Thy song, nor ever can those trees be bare;Bold Lover, never, never canst thou kiss,

Though winning near the goal—yet, do not grieve;She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss,

Forever wilt thou love, and she be fair!

IIIAh, happy, happy boughs! that cannot shed

Your leaves, nor ever bid the Spring adieu;And, happy melodist, unwearied,

For ever piping songs for ever new;More happy love! more happy, happy love!

For ever warm and still to be enjoy’d,

For ever panting, and for ever young;All breathing human passion far above,

That leaves a heart high-sorrowful and cloy’d,A burning forehead, and a parching tongue.

IVWho are these coming to the sacrifice?

To what green altar, O mysterious priest,Lead’st thou that heifer lowing at the skies,

And all her silken flanks with garland drest?What little town by river or sea shore,

Or mountain-built with peaceful citadel,Is emptied of its folk, this pious morn?

And, little town, thy streets for evermoreWill silent be; and not a soul to tell

Why thou art desolate, can e’er return.

VO Attic shape! Fair attitude! with brede

Of marble men and maidens overwrought,With forest branches and the trodden weed;

Thou, silent form, dost tease us out of thoughtAs doth eternity: Cold Pastoral!

When old age shall this generation waste,Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe

Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say’st,“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,”—that is all

Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.—John Keats

Ode On A Grecian Urn

70

even possessing the object of our love inthe mortal world of time and change, heis contemplating, and causing us to havea passionate feeling for, a world inwhich love and happiness, althoughnever achieving sensual fulfillment, areeternal. There is something truly sub-lime, captured in the line, “For ever wiltthou love, and she be fair!,” whichseems to lift us completely out of thewild sensuality of the first stanza. In thethird stanza, he expands on this thought,reaching the climax of joy with “Morehappy love!, etc.,” and then, with thecrucial reflection that it is, after all, stillhuman passion, however unchanging andforever young, returns to contemplateour actual condition, now seeminglyeven more unfulfilled after this experi-ence—with “a burning forehead and aparching tongue.”

Up to this point, the challenge inreciting this poem largely consists ofmustering the required emotionalintensity and clarity to convey the scenealmost as if it were a drama, albeit ahighly unusual one, without affected-ness; for the drama is not in the past orthe present, or really even on the urn,but in the mind. The end of stanza IIIleaves us feeling that the paradox is stillunresolved, and must be read so as toclearly contrast with the “happy, happylove” which precedes it. However,what comes next requires an almostreligious sense of mystery to be effec-tive, and, indeed, its essential religioussignificance is clearly indicated in thefirst four lines. Keats suddenly turnsfrom the scene of riotous merry-mak-ing and the desire to experience happi-ness forever, to this more somber pro-cession led by a priest with a heifer tobe sacrificed. He then, just as suddenly,turns to the image of the little town,emptied of its people, although it is evi-dent from the phrase, “what littletown,” that it is not actually pictured onthe urn, but exists as an hypothesis inthe poet’s, and our, mind. The tenderfeeling with which he personifies anddirectly addresses it, produces astrange, and melancholy—yet com-pletely uplifting—effect.

There was much debate in the groupover how to understand, let alone recite,

this passage. One thing, however, is cer-tain; neither Keats, nor any great poet,ever resorted to mere symbolism, thelogician’s trick of substituting oneapparently similar term for another.Metaphor, on the other hand, is a higherform of irony, in which two seeminglyinconsistent ideas are juxtaposed to eachother, creating a paradox which inducesthe mind to conceptualize a third idea,which resolves the paradox. Althoughnever explicitly stated, this idea, or asuccession of such ideas, is the true sub-ject of the poem. These are the melodiesheard not by the sensual ear, but by thespirit. The poet is, in effect, speaking tothe inner cognitive processes of ourminds, the place beyond the reach oflogical, deductive language, yet, para-doxically, using language to get there! Itis never so simple as to say, “what doesthis stand for?,” or, “what does thismean?,” but rather, ask “what change isthis causing in those inner cognitiveprocesses, considering its relationship toall that has gone before it?”

From this standpoint, it now appearsthat the effect wrought in us by stanzaIV comes about as a result of a shift infocus from the self, to something larger,more universal, and also an emotionalstate which connects our own longingfor the eternal, with the image of thistown, in a suspended state, so to speak,looking both backward to the past, andforward to the future, with longing andhope for the return of its people. Arethey dead? Not really—for somethingof their souls is still speaking to usthrough the medium of this urn, thishuman work of art, over the millennia.This is one of the best examples of the“simultaneity of eternity” in all of Clas-sical art, and the fact that Keats, himself,is speaking to us through the medium ofthis poem, this “black ink,” over the cen-turies, adds another dimension of beautyto this miraculous and uniquely humancommunication.

Now Keats, reflecting his ownamazement with this fact, goes directlyto the denouement of the poem, and itsfamous ending. This urn, this static andsilent object, “teases” us out of the tan-gled knot of paradoxes, the paradoxes ofmortal, temporal existence, as does eter-

The

Gra

nger

Col

lect

ion,

New

Yor

k

William Shakespeare

John Keats

nity. It is, as is all great and sublime art,truly a friend to man, for it is throughbeauty that we discover our soul’simmortality and that, indeed, is the mostfundamental truth of our existence.

Although one could devote a lifetimeto the study of the implications of justthis one poem, it is especially gratifyingwhen situated within the process whichpreceded it, as we have seen a glimpse ofwith Shakespeare, and what came afterit, for, unfortunately, poetry never againattained such heights. Poetic composi-tion and recitation have fallen into suchdegeneracy in the last century, thatthose, mostly elderly living practitionersof Classical singing and similar artisticstandards in poetic speech, such asWilliam Warfield, stand out like giants.Although time didn’t permit us to recitethe “Grecian Urn” for him that night,he did, toward the end, sensing theoverall mood and what we were strivingfor, offer this reminiscence. He was par-ticipating as a soloist in a performance ofa mass of J.S. Bach, with the famousPablo Casals conducting. At a rehearsal,everything, seemingly by magic, cametogether—orchestra, soloists, and con-ductor all intensely aware that they werein the grip of a powerful, beautiful, andeternal idea, from God, but mediatedthrough the divine soul of J.S. Bach.After a long silence following the dyingaway of the last note, with tears in hiseyes, Casals said, “Aren’t we lucky to bemusicians?” The beauty of it is, thatthrough our participation, in whatevercapacity, in truly sublime music, poetry,or any other form, we all can just astruly say, “Aren’t we lucky to behuman?”

It should now be evident where thefundamental optimism of all creativegeniuses comes from. What we know oftheir lives, attests to the fact that, despitephysical suffering, persecution orunsympathetic peers, they neverwavered in their belief in, and commit-ment to, this fundamental goodness inhumanity. We decided, for that reason,after experiencing this whole process, toconclude our presentation with thepoem “To Hope” by Keats, and that ishow we shall end this report.

—Dan Leach

71

To HopeWhen by my solitary hearth I sit,

And hateful thoughts enwrap my soul in gloom;When no fair dreams before my ‘mind’s eye’ flit,

And the bare heath of life presents no bloom;Sweet Hope, ethereal balm upon me shed,And wave thy silver pinions o’er my head.

Whene’er I wander, at the fall of night,Where woven boughs shut out the moon’s bright ray,

Should sad Despondency my musings fright,And frown, to drive fair Cheerfulness away,

Peep with the moon-beams through the leafy roof,And keep that fiend Despondence far aloof.

Should Disappointment, parent of Despair,Strive for her son to seize my careless heart;

When, like a cloud, he sits upon the air,Preparing on his spell-bound prey to dart:

Chase him away, sweet Hope, with visage bright,And fright him as the morning frightens night!

Whene’er the fate of those I hold most dearTells to my fearful breast a tale of sorrow,

O bright-eyed Hope, my morbid fancy cheer;Let me awhile thy sweetest comforts borrow:

Thy heaven-born radiance around me shed,And wave thy silver pinions o’er my head!

Should e’er unhappy love my bosom pain,From cruel parents, or relentless fair;

O let me think it is not quite in vainTo sigh out sonnets to the midnight air!

Sweet Hope, ethereal balm upon me shed,And wave thy silver pinions o’er my head!

In the long vista of the years to roll,Let me not see our country’s honour fade:

O let me see our land retain her soul,Her pride, her freedom; and not freedom’s shade.

From thy bright eyes unusual brightness shed—Beneath thy pinions canopy my head!

Let me not see the patriot’s high bequest,Great Liberty! how great in plain attire!

With the base purple of a court oppress’dBowing her head and ready to expire:

But let me see thee stoop from heaven on wingsThat fill the sky with silver glitterings!

And as, in sparkling majesty, a starGilds the bright summit of some gloomy cloud;

Brightening the half veil’d face of heaven afar:So, when dark thoughts my boding spirit shroud,

Sweet Hope, celestial influence round me shed,Waving thy silver pinions o’er my head.

—John Keats

72

If it is true that the level of develop-ment of a culture can be judged, in

significant part at least, by the status ofwomen in that society, then the ItalianRenaissance produced a revolution inthis regard—among all the others forwhich it is so justly famous. And therevolutionary idea that women shoulddevelop their intellectual powers, draw-ing upon Classical humanist education,was reflected in how women were por-trayed in the paintings and sculpture ofthe age. (This, notwithstanding the

Washington Post’s scurrilous, and oddly“feminist” critique of this exhibitionpublished October 3 [SEE Box, page 74].)

This view of the importance ofwomen is most poetically expressed inthe inscription placed on the reverse sideof Leonardo da Vinci’s portrait ofGinevra de’ Benci (1474-78): “VirtutemForma Decorat,” “Beauty AdornsVirtue,” from which the NationalGallery exhibit takes its title, “Virtueand Beauty.” The portrait of Ginevra, awoman of renowned intelligence andgrace, and the centerpiece of the currentexhibit, is, arguably, the most importantpainting owned by the NationalGallery—the only painting by Leonardoin the Americas. Thus, an event thatshowcases this little treasure, is mostwelcome; indeed, Ginevra is the mostfascinating of all the young women por-trayed in this collection, which derivesalmost entirely from Fifteenth- and Six-teenth-century Florence, i.e., the highpoint of the Golden Renaissance [SEE

right and inside back cover, this issue].That women appeared as secular

subjects at this time is, in itself, highlysignificant. But, the origins of suchfemale portraiture are to be found intwo earlier sources: First, in the Italian

vernacular poetry of Danteand Petrarch; and, second,in Renaissance portrayalsof the Virgin, especiallythose of the Annunciation,in which the Virgin is vir-tually always presented asan intellectual woman,interrupted by the angelGabriel while reading abook. (This is true for bothNorthern and Italianpaintings.)

Beatrice and Laura

In Dante’s Commedia, orDivine Comedy, the Romanpoet Virgil, whom Danterevered as his mentor,leads Dante through Hell,and up the Mount of Pur-gatory, until they reach theWall of Fire, throughwhich Dante must pass before enteringEarthly Paradise at the summit. But,when Dante reaches the Wall, it is Beat-rice alone who is able to give him thecourage to enter the flames. And it isBeatrice—who for Dante representsDivine Wisdom—who must lead himupwards through the Heavenly spheres,to look directly into the face of God, ashe does at the conclusion of the Paradiso,while along the way, she instructs himin the Renaissance sciences of physicsand astrophysics.

In Canto XXXI of the Paradiso,Dante expresses his love for Beatrice,who has been his guide:

“O lady in whom all my hope takesstrength,

and who for my salvation did endureto leave her footprints on the floor of

Hell,

through your own power, throughyour own excellence

I recognize the grace and the effectof all those things I have seen with

my eyes.

From bondage into freedom you ledme

by all those paths, by using all thosemeans

which were within the limits of yourpower.

Preserve in me your great munifi-cence,

so that my soul which you havehealed may be

pleasing to you when it slips from the flesh.”1

In the case of Dante’s student Petrarch,his beloved Muse was named Laura. In asonnet in his Canzoniere, Petrarch alsospeaks of her as a guide to the eternal:

From her to you comes lovingthought that leads,

as long as you pursue, to highestgood,

esteeming little what all men desire;there comes from her all joyous hon-

estythat leads you by the straight path up

to Heaven—already I fly high upon my hope.2

The Heavenly Guide

Virtue and Beauty: Leonardo’s ‘Ginevra de’ Benci’ andRenaissance Portraits of Women

Andrea del Verrocchio, “Lady with a Bunch of Flowers,” c. 1475-1480.

Mus

eoN

azio

nale

delB

arge

llo,F

lore

nce

73

Leonardo kept a copy of Dante’smasterpiece on his bedside table, whileMichelangelo is said to have memorizedmost of it. In fact, the image of womanas the embodiment of Virtue, the path-way to the Good, which infuses thepoetry of Dante and Petrarch, informsand illuminates the paintings of theRenaissance they fathered. It is uniquelyfrom this standpoint that the portraits in“Virtue and Beauty” can be understood.

‘Character and Mind’

The exhibit, sponsored by Airbus, offersmore than forty works rarely seen inthis country, including several male por-traits, as well as a small number ofsculptures and medals.

Among these is a profile portrait ofGiovanna degli Abizzi Tornabuoni, byDomenico Ghirlandaio (1449-1494),loaned by the Tyssen-Bournemisza Col-lection in Madrid [SEE inside back cover,this issue]. Although sometimes mistak-en for a wedding portrait, memorializ-ing one of the most celebrated Floren-tine marriages of the day, between theAlbizzi and Turnabuoni families, thework was probably done posthumously

in 1488: Giovanna died giving birthto her second child, only two yearsafter her marriage.

Behind the shimmering image ofGiovanna, who is dressed sumptu-ously in garments usually reservedfor brides, is a Latin inscription,meaning, “Art, would that youwould represent character andmind. There would be no morebeautiful painting on earth.”

The painting is extraordinary, inthat, it is not only stunningly beauti-ful, but, despite the profile view ofthe subject, the artist has succeededin conveying the subject’s uprightcharacter and intelligence, as well asher beauty. And, like the Madonnaswe find in Annunciation pictures,she appears to have just put downher book, which rests on the ledgebehind her, directly under the Latininscription.

An earlier painting by SandroBotticelli, “Woman at a Window”(1470/75), presents a different kind ofbeauty, in which the character and per-sonality of the sitter transcend a ratherplain appearance [SEE inside back cover,

this issue]. The lady in question isbelieved to be Smerelda Brandini—the grandmother of the sculptorBaccio Bandinelli. In this portrait,Botticelli breaks with tradition bypainting the subject in three-quar-ter view, allowing us to look intoher eyes, which are dark andthoughtful. We are also drawn intoher world by the perspective deviceBotticelli employs of havingSmerelda rest her hand on theframe of the window she is lookingout of, an illusion that connects herspace with ours. All of which con-tributes to the impression that she isa real person, not an icon to beadmired from afar.

Influence of Verrocchio

One of the most charming worksin the exhibit is Verrocchio’s mar-ble bust, “Lady with a Bunch ofFlowers” (c. 1475), from theMuseo Nazionale del Bargello, inFlorence. Verrocchio was, ofcourse, the teacher of Leonardo,and his studio was the most influ-

ential in Florence during the secondhalf of the Fifteenth century. Both Bot-ticelli’s “Brandini” and Leonardo’s“Ginevra” owe much to Verrocchio’smasterpiece.

In this revolutionary work, Verroc-chio recalls Classical Greek relief sculp-ture, yet goes beyond it, by executingthe figure fully in the round. The inclu-sion of the lady’s hands, which gentlypress a bunch of flowers to her breast,represent a Renaissance invention byVerrocchio: It is the only Fifteenth-cen-tury portrait-sculpture which portraysthe subject half-length, showing thearms and hands. By employing subtleasymmetries—her left shoulder isslightly higher than her right; her headtilts slightly toward the side; thenosegay of flowers are placed off-cen-ter—Verrocchio conveys the illusionthat the subject has been interrupted inmid-motion, a hallmark of ClassicalGreek sculpture.

Verrocchio’s most celebrated student,Leonardo da Vinci, in his “Ginevra,”adopts many of these innovations.Although the painting which has comedown to us is incomplete—the lowerthird was cut off after being damaged—it is believed that the original versionwas, like Verrocchio’s bust, a figure in

Computer reconstruction of Leonardo’s “Ginevra de’ Benci” as a figure in half-length.The hypothesis is based, in part, on the drawingof hands shown above.

Leonardo da Vinci, “Study of Hands,” c. 1474.

Lent

byH

erM

ajes

tyQ

ueen

Eliz

abet

hII

Dep

artm

ento

fIm

agin

gan

dV

isua

lSer

vice

s,N

atio

nalG

alle

ryof

Art

,Was

hing

ton

half-length. This hypothesis is based, inpart, on the existence of a drawing ofhands by Leonardo (now at WindsorCastle), which has been used to create acomputer reconstruction on display withthe exhibit.

Ginevra was the daughter of awealthy Florentine banking family,who, in 1474, at the age of 16, marriedLuigi Niccolini. There is some disputeas to whether Leonardo’s portrait wascommissioned by the family to com-memorate Ginevra’s marriage (a some-what dubious proposal, since unlikeGhirlandaio’s Giovanna Turnabuoni,she is dressed in everyday clothing); or,as many believe, the painting was com-missioned by her admirer, the celebrat-ed bibliophile Bernardo Bembo, Venet-ian Ambassador to Florence from 1475-76, and again 1478-80, who, in chivalricfashion, chose Ginevera as his “Platon-ic” innamorata. That Bembo was thepatron is further borne out by the factthat the reverse of the painting bearshis family insignia, along with themotto, “Beauty Adorns Virtue.” Know-ing Bembo’s Venetian pedigree, it isnot too difficult to imagine that it washe who put that sad expression onGinevra’s face, and not the illness oftenproffered as the explanation for herpallor.3

Beyond dispute, however, is the factthat the painting was executed by a veryyoung Leonardo da Vinci, who in 1474would have been about 22 years old.Like Verrocchio’s Bargello lady,Ginevra appears to us as a real person:she turns toward us, in three-quarterview. Like her brown dress, which isveiled by the diaphanous coverciere, herlight brown eyes are veiled by her pri-vate thoughts. Her dress and coiffureare remarkably like those of Verroc-chio’s bust (we can now compare themside by side); yet, here too, we get a fore-taste of what is to come in the maturemasterpieces of Leonardo, especially the“Mona Lisa,” whose watery landscapeand distant horizon are already presentin the Ginevra.

While it is always a joy to visitGinevra when at the National Gallery,seeing her among her contemporaries inthe current exhibit, and alongside the

Verrocchio sculpture, makes the tripespecially worthwhile now.

—Bonnie James

The exhibit will be open at the NationalGallery of Art, Washington, D.C., fromSept. 30, 2001 to Jan. 6, 2002.

1. The Portable Dante, trans. and ed. byMark Musa (New York: Penguin Books,1995).

2. Petrarch: Selections from the Canzoniere,

and Other Works, trans. by Mark Musa(New York: Oxford University Press,1985).

3. Bernardo Bembo, and his more famousson, the Cardinal Pietro Bembo, wereleading Venetian “intellectuals,” i.e., Aris-toteleans, who were deployed to corruptthe Renaissance in Florence. Bernardowas active in the so-called “Platonic Acad-emy” of Marsilio Ficino, which attemptedto synthesize the irreconcilable philoso-phies of Plato and Aristotle.

74

‘Renaissance Florence was a lousyplace to be a lady. If you sur-

vived to adolescence as a virgin, youwere likely to be betrothed to somepowerful stranger twice your age,”observed Blake Gopnik, art critic forthe Washington Post, in his October 3review of “Virtue and Beauty.” Mr.Gopnik, who seems to be a memberof that strange art-world fraternity ofmen who hate women, goes on to lav-ish attention on every superficialaspect of the physical appearance—hairdos, clothing, skin texture, etc.—of the subjects of these Renaissanceportraits, almost as if he were vyingto become a Fifteenth-century Ver-sace: “With a bit of work by a cleverhairdresser, and a bank loan for herpearls, the anonymous beauty . . .could have looked almost this good inlife,” he hisses.

“We could wax lyrical about thehumanizing Renaissance eye, and thefriendly glance it cast at women, andmaybe we still will,” Gopnik avers,but he never actually delivers. Insteadwe are treated to the view of the Flo-rentine philosopher Marsilio Ficino(the Venetian asset who founded theFlorentine Academy to obscure thedistinction between Plato and Aristo-tle), who is quoted as having said: “Awoman should be like a chamber pot,hidden away once a man had emptiedhimself into her.”

But, perhaps, the Washington Postjust doesn’t appreciate Italian Renais-sance portraits? Well, then, there wasBlake Gopnik’s reaction to the Lon-

don exhibit of “Rembrandt’sWomen,” printed in the Post just afew weeks later, on October 21, andtitled “Rembrandt, Facing the UglyTruth: The Dutch Master’s ‘Women’Turns a Few Heads in London.”Contrasting Rembrandt’s “ugly”women to the “truly pretty” onespainted by “the best guy artists ofRenaissance Florence,” Gopnik pro-ceeds to deconstruct Rembrandt: “Ifyou isolate the paint that Rembrandtgoops onto his canvases from themagical effect it works on us, you seea coagulated mess of bits and blobs offatty emulsion, like mayonnaise gonevery wrong, built up on a back-ground of oil smearings.” (Recall thatGopnik is trashing paintings likeRembrandt’s 1634 “Flora,” a lovingportrait of the artist’s first wife, Sask-ia; and the powerful “Susanna andthe Elders,” among others.)

Not only Rembrandt’s sublimepaintings, but even his etchings anddrawings come under fire: “Rem-brandt, often credited as the greatestetcher of all time, tends toward a tan-gled line, that scratches like steelwool.” Gopnik’s foulest venom isreserved for one of Rembrandt’s mostlovingly beautiful drawings: “Aquaintly observed scene of twowomen teaching a toddler to walk ishard to smile at, given the unforgiv-ing inky snarl that it’s renderedwith.”

The Washington Post doesn’t onlyhate women, it hates art!

—BJ

Why Does the Washington Post Hate Women?

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing’s 1779play, Nathan the Wise, is, if anything,

a more powerful attack today on the“clash of civilizations” pathway for thedifferent religions, than it was at the timeit was written. Likewise, the alternative itclearly poses—that Christian, Jew, andMuslim should deal with each other bycompeting to do good and to improve theworld—emerges even more starklyagainst the war which now threatens theworld, should that alternative fail.

In a stroke of good fortune, the playwas recently staged outside Washington,D.C., at George Mason University inVirginia. University playwright andprofessor Paul D’Andrea presented atwo-hour play, adapted from Lessing’sfive-act drama, under the same title.Nathan the Wise is the centerpiece ofThe Jerusalem Project, an effort to pro-mote understanding among diversegroups at G.M.U., its theater, the JewishCommunity Center of Northern Vir-ginia, various high school classes study-ing the play, and others. With the near-collapse of Mideast peace efforts, and the

attempts to trap the United States into awar against Islam, the performancecould not be more timely, or more vitalfor allowing the audience the opportuni-ty to re-create the solution today, byobserving the characters on the stage.

History Behind the Play

Lessing set the play in 1192, in the ThirdCrusade, after the Muslim warriorPrince Saladin retook Jerusalem fromthe Christians. Saladin then establishedthe Peace of Ramla, which lasted untilhis death in 1195. During those threeyears, Jews, Christians, and Muslimslived in peace in Jerusalem, which Sal-adin believed possible because all threereligions believed in the same God andrevered the Hebrew Old Testament.

Lessing, the son of a minister, wrotethe play as an intervention into his owntimes. It was a continuation by anothermeans—irony—of his philosophical waragainst the theologians who believed insalvation through revealed religion alone.Lessing based his Jewish characterNathan on Moses Mendelssohn, his close

personal friend and collaborator in uplift-ing the culture of the German nation.Mendelssohn, in turn, had studied theworks of the great Jewish-Arabic writerand philosopher Moses Maimonides,who was the historical Saladin’s physi-cian at court. Mendelssohn credited thisplay with having a part in Joseph II’smagnanimous gesture in giving the Jewsof the Austrian Empire rights, throughthe Edict of Toleration in January 1782.Lessing and Mendelssohn collaborated todefend the great thinker G.W. Leibniz,and made possible the German Classicalperiod of Friedrich Schiller and theHumboldt brothers.1

‘Improver of the World’

We see the noble character of Saladin’ssoul early in the play, when he sparesthe life of his enemy, the Knight Tem-plar. The young knight is shocked, andexpects to remain a prisoner in one wayor another. Saladin, who in D’Andrea’sadaptation adopts as his title “Improverof the World,” explains that he has rec-ognized the image of his deceasedbrother, Assad, in the Frankish knight,and therefore is moved to show good-ness; i.e., he recognizes the brotherhoodof man (close to literal truth in this case).Inviting the knight to abide in hishousehold, Saladin says, “As Mussel-man, as Christian . . . all one to me. . . . Ihave never desired that one bark growon all trees of the wood.”

In the character Nathan, weencounter a Schilleresque “sublime soul.”We hear that he refuses to lend money toanyone in need—because if he lent it, hewould not be able to give as much tothem (perhaps this inspired Schiller in hiswritings on the Good Samaritan).Nathan has taken a Christian infant toraise, three days after Christians mur-dered his wife and seven sons; afterwrestling with his despair, he gives up

75

Now, More than Ever,Nathan Inspires the ‘Sublime’

The Parable of the Rings: Nathan (MitchellHébert) receives the Sultan’s prized familyopal during the climactic religious trialwhich concludes Paul D’Andrea’sadaptation of Lessing’s ‘Nathan the Wise’ atGeorge Mason University in Virginia.

Sta

nB

arou

h

hatred and thanks God, saying,“Oh God, for seven, alreadyone Thou givest!” He would bepleased to give his belovedadopted daughter Recha inmarriage to the Knight Tem-plar if it were possible, alldemonstrating that to practiceone’s religion is to do good, notmerely to believe a dogma. Thisis the application by Lessing ofthe “Peace of Westphalia” prin-ciple that ended the ThirtyYears War (1618-48): The onlyway to end a religious war is towalk away from it, forget allinjuries, and work for the bene-fit of the former enemy.

The Parable of the Rings

In D’Andrea’s adaptation, theconniving of doctrinal zealotsproduces a trial of Nathan.These are either professionaltheologians like the Patriarch,or the shallow Daya, the Christ-ian companion whom Nathanhas hired to care for his daugh-ter, and who still believes thatRecha belongs with her ownblood—Christians—in theirown soil—Europe. In the trialat the conclusion of the play,where Nathan is defending his life inanswering the no-win question—“Whichis the true religion?”—Nathan deliversLessing’s parable of the three rings:

A man was given a ring, which madeits bearer beloved of all men. The giftwas to be passed down to the son mostbeloved of the father. So it was, until onefather had three sons he loved equally.When he was alone with each, the fatherimagined he loved that son the best, andpromised each the ring. In old age, notbearing to disappoint two of the three, hedetermined to have two exact copiesmade, so each son would think he hadinherited the magical ring.

After the father died, each sonbelieved he had inherited the true ringas promised, and that his brothers werelying. They go before a judge, who rulesthat none of them seems worthy of loveat that moment; perhaps after a thou-sand years, the true ring might be recog-nized, when its bearer would be loved

for the good he had done.Thus, whichever brother does the

most good, will be recognized as hold-ing the “true” ring. So let it be with reli-gions, says Nathan. Thus, Lessing’sNathan forces the audience to discover,by mentally re-enacting Lessing’s para-ble, that the truth of the ring cannot beknown by its appearance to the senses,but rather, by the goodness it inspires, asdemonstrated in the real world.

Ecumenism means neither doctrinalcompromises resulting in a mush, nor acollection of religions with equal rightsin a pantheon; but, rather, acting onthose religious truths which can beknown and demonstrated by reason,such as that all men are made in theimage of God in their capacity to makecreative discoveries.

Moses Mendelssohn, the model forNathan, in his Jerusalem, or On ReligiousPower and Judaism, written in 1782-83,cites the great Rabbi Hillel the Elder,

who, when pressed to deliverthe entire Law in brief, said,“Love thy neighbor as thyself.This is the text of the Law; allthe rest is commentary. Nowgo and study!”

Lessing further insists thatmiracles are performed byhuman beings, not by Heaven:The design of creation allowsthe scope for potent humanaction, which the credulouscall miraculous.

Changes in New Production

D’Andrea’s production is anadaptation, with substantialdivergences from the original.This works best in the strettocreated with the parable of therings being dramatized at theconclusion, rather than simplyrecited in the middle of thedrama. There is the typicalproblem of too much playingfor laughs by the actors.Worse, Nathan himself is notconsistently played as the sub-lime character Lessing intend-ed him to be.

In fact, it is exactly the lackof education in the quality ofthe “sublime” which has made

so few people ready to act outside popu-lar opinion, to avert tragedy. Drawing onSchiller’s discussion, Lyndon LaRouchehas described the sublime as the qualitysuch that “in the bowels of horror, peoplecome forth as individuals, who are able tograsp the situation, intervene into the sit-uation, and, by the method described byPlato [posing a paradox], to transformthemselves, and thus gain from that, theability to rise above the situation, to save apeople that is not worth saving, but tolead them to safety.”

Nathan and Saladin demonstrate thesublime, and this company has largelysucceeded in bringing out the funda-mental intention of Lessing in this play,which is all too rarely performed.

—Anita Gallagher

1. See David Shavin, “PhilosophicalVignettes from the Political Life of MosesMendelssohn,” Fidelio, Summer 1999(Vol. VIII, No. 2).

76

Sultan Saladin (Craig Wallace) orders a truce between Christiansand Muslims in Jerusalem after taking the city in 1198; behindhim is his sister and confidante, Sittah (Kimberly Schraf).

Sta

nB

arou

h

77

On September 9, dedication cere-monies opened the long-awaited

permanent exhibition of the JewishMuseum Berlin, “Two Millennia of Ger-man Jewish History.” During a trip thefollowing month, I was able to take atwo-hour tour of the museum.Although my visit was compressed, themuseum’s intended purpose is unmis-takable, and a historic step forward forboth Germany and the world’s Jewishpopulation.

Rather than forcing the visitor toview German Jewish history throughthe gray prism of the Holocaust, themuseum portrays 2,000 years of Jewishlife in Germany by reviewing the reli-gious customs and practice of Ger-many’s Jews, and the contributions thatthese Jews, as Germans, made to thedevelopment of the German nation, aswell as their contributions to the sci-ences, arts, culture, and universalknowledge.

This idea was uniquely presented byJohannes Rau, the President of the Fed-eral Republic of Germany, who sent atext message of dedication to the openingceremonies. Rau’s message was extraor-dinary, and it echoed a public statementissued by Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche on Sept. 3,1999, entitled “Music, Judaism, andHitler.”* Not only did Rau embraceGerman Jewry’s past as part of Ger-many’s living heritage, he reaffirmedthat by understanding the history andcontributions of Germany’s Jews, “wewill become more aware of how heavythe loss is that we also inflicted uponourselves with the Holocaust.”

The German President went further,and defined, in ecumenical terms, theimportance of Jewish life for all ofEurope: “It is therefore not only sincethe Enlightenment in the Eighteenth

century that Jews have been making amajor contribution towards the develop-ment of German and European culture.They were involved in it from the verybeginning. Europe’s roots do not lieexclusively in Christianity. Jewish cul-ture also forms part of Europe’s roots—as does, by the way, Islamic culture.”

A Sense of Optimism

The museum has a section on the Holo-caust, but President Rau addressed thishistory with a courage and truthfulnessthat few German leaders have been ableto muster. The President shattered theevil shackles of “collective guilt,” some-thing forced upon the German popula-tion during the postwar period whichstill haunts and hinders them to the pre-sent day, by stating that the Holocaustwas, in fact, “a complete breakdown incivilization . . . neither inherent in theGerman character nor an inevitabledevelopment in German history. Theblame for what was done to German

and European Jews lies with those whoplanned, ordered, and committed thegenocide.”

President Rau ended his message bystating that the museum should helpprovide a sense of optimism for bothGerman and Jew: “This museum willincrease awareness of the great contribu-tion which many Jewish Germans andGerman Jews have made to our culture.The Jewish Museum Berlin shows usthat Jewish and German history aremore than the Holocaust and the ThirdReich. . . . The fact that we are keepingthe memory alive, thus contributing to abright future is, in my view, today’sgift.”

Lack of Clarity

Unfortunately, Rau’s eloquent andcourageous message, whose text shouldbe read in full, is more successful inwhat it conveys, than the exhibitionitself—which tends to be heavily exis-tential, lacks clarity in presenting the

importance of historical contri-butions, and omits whole areaswhere Jews provided the crucialleadership that both furtheredGerman Classical culture andactually built Germany into amodern nation.

The museum faced a diffi-cult task in assembling its dis-plays, for various reasons. Mostof the artifacts were amassedfrom private families, and, ofcourse, so much was physicallydestroyed by the Nazis and dur-ing Allied bombings. In addi-tion, many well-preserved arti-facts are already housed at themuseum and archives of theNew Synagogue in Berlin, aswell as the Jewish Museum inFrankfurt. These two institu-tions hold many wonderful reli-gious artifacts, whose crafts-manship and beauty are a won-der, and they also hold impor-

Recapturing a Proud German-Jewish Heritage

__________

* Featured as the editorial in the Fall 1999issue of Fidelio (Vol. VIII, No. 3).

Title-page illustration portrays Moses Mendelssohn asthe “Berlin Socrates.”

tant historical objects and paintingsdepicting the major contributions andleading roles that Germany’s Jewsplayed in various fields, including classi-cal music, something that is sorely lack-ing in the new museum. There are alsosmall but significant holdings andarchives in smaller state and city muse-ums throughout Germany.

One can compensate for what ismissing by visiting the museum’s exten-sive bookstore, which has many won-derful volumes, some in English, cover-ing virtually all areas of German Jewishlife and history. The museum will alsohouse an archive and library that will beopen to visitors and scholars. Thearchive plans to have microfilm docu-ments from the Leo Baeck Institute,which has amassed the largest collectionof material on German Jewish history inthe world. The museum has also wiselychosen to provide the textual descriptionof its displays in English, as well as Ger-man (English is the second language formany European nations).

The Mendelssohn Tradition

The museum does succeed in its uniquedisplay honoring the life of MosesMendelssohn (1729-1786), however. Foranyone who is familiar with, or who hasstudied the life of the great philosopherand Orthodox Jew, the artifacts willtend to excite you, and make this periodof history come alive, so that you canwalk along in Mendelssohn’s “foot-steps.”

Mendelssohn is known for his life-long collaboration with the playwrightand author Gotthold Ephraim Lessing,which collective activity laid the basisfor what has become know as the greatGerman Classical period. As youngfriends, they fought to defend the ideasand works of Leibniz, who had comeunder posthumous attack by theRomantic philosophers of the BerlinAcademy. The two maintained thatonly an ecumenical dialogue amongstthe three great monotheistic religionscould overcome the problems that facedcivilization.

To this end, Lessing wrote the dramaNathan the Wise, which was published in1779, and whose main character,Nathan, was modelled on Mendelssohn

[SEE drama review, page 75, this issue].This background is explained in the textthat accompanies an original copy of theplay. There is also a wonderful, full-sizecopy of a drawing of Mendelssohn andLessing taking a walk on the prome-nade in front of Lessing’s house inWolfenbuttel, sketched in 1875 byFriedrich Werner.

Mendelssohn, a Plato scholar, wrotePhaedon, or On the Immortality of the Soul,which was published in 1767, and cata-pulted him to world recognition. He wasthereafter known throughout Europe asthe “Berlin Socrates,” as the museum textdetails; the museum displays originalcopies of this work in numerous transla-tions, to make the point.

Mendelssohn transformed Judaismthrough his religious writings, whichproved that Mosaic law was coherentwith Plato’s notion of natural law. Hetranslated numerous Biblical worksfrom Hebrew into German (usingHebrew characters), so that Jews couldlearn German, and have access to thetools necessary to become leading citi-zens. The museum display includesMendelssohn’s translation of the Pen-tateuch (Five Books of Moses), and acopy of Jerusalem, his most famouswork, on Judaism, religious con-

science, and the re-lationship betweenChurch and State.

So you may know Mendelssohn’smind more intimately, you can listenthrough headphones to readings in Ger-man and English from three selected writ-ings, entitled “My Life,” “The Jew,” and“The Philosopher.” There are no fewerthan four different busts of the thinker,several oil portraits, and a set of his eye-glasses. In addition, the display includesmaterial on Mendelssohn’s collaborators,spanning another two generations.

More than any single person, it wasMoses Mendelssohn whose entire beingtransformed both Germany and Ger-man Jewry, forging a path to the Ger-man Classical period and Jewish politi-cal emancipation, so that Germanymight become a modern nation.

As I came to the end of the exhibit,there was a group of German childrenhaving a wonderful time (as were theirparents) taking a German pfennig(penny) and striking it into a commemo-rative coin bearing an image of the greatphilosopher. I believe that it was a fac-simile of the silver medal issued inMendelssohn’s honor in 1776.

—Steven P. Meyer

Steven P. Meyer’s “Moses Mendelssohn andthe Bach Tradition” appeared in the Sum-mer 1999 issue of Fidelio (Vol. VIII, No. 2).

78

Left: Mendelssohn andLessing in Wolfenbuttel(drawing by FriedrichWerner, 1875). Below:Lessing’s ‘Nathan theWise,’ 1779.

The year 2001 saw the publication ofleading economist Lyndon

LaRouche’s fifth book on economic sci-entific method. Putting aside his book-length Presidential campaign discus-sions, which have combined his pro-grammatic approach with questions ofmethod, we can count four major vol-umes. First, Dialectical Economics, pub-lished by D.C. Heath in 1975. Second,So, You Wish To Learn All About Eco-nomics? A Textbook on ElementaryMathematical Economics, published byEIR News Service in 1984 and 1995,and currently published in at least ahalf-dozen foreign languages, includingRussian, Spanish, German, and French.Third, The Science of Christian Econo-my, and Other Prison Writings, publishedby the Schiller Institute in 1991, whileLaRouche was a political prisoner.Fourth, there was the 2001 EIR NewsService book, Now, Are You Ready ToLearn Economics?, which, like the cur-rent volume, was composed largely of aseries of essays first printed in EIRmagazine.

The Economics of the Noöspherehomes in on the major epistemologicalquestion which all of LaRouche’s writ-ings feature, the central role of humancognition in the science of physical econ-omy. The book is crafted to feature thiselement in the following way. First, theintroduction reviews in some detailLaRouche’s unparalleled record as along-term economic forecaster, startingwith his 1956-59 projections of a funda-mental economic crisis. This record hasdrawn the attention of leading intellec-tuals and politicians in major nationssuch as Russia, China, India, and Italy,to name only a few, in particular sincethe dramatic system-wide crisis of 1997hit. Such a record naturally raises thedeeper question of LaRouche’s episte-mology—how he was able to reach theseconclusions, when so many others failed.

To answer this question, the bookcollects three major EIR essays from

March of 2001: “Shrunken Heads inAmerica Today,” “A Philosophy forVictory: Can We Change the Uni-verse?,” and, “The Gravity of EconomicIntentions.” These are supplemented byan appendix on the work of VladimirVernadsky, the Russian biogeochemistwho first enunciated the concept of thenoösphere to which LaRouche refers.

The Noösphere

In each of the three articles, LaRoucherelies heavily on Vernadsky’s definitionof the noösphere, as that realm ofhuman cognition which dominates, butis interconnected with, the two lowerspheres of existence: the abiotic universe,and the biosphere. Vernadsky empha-sizes, LaRouche writes, “the uniquequality of noetic function of mankind,in transforming the biosphere to higherstates of anti-entropy.” Human cogni-tion does not spontaneously evolve fromlower forms of life, but, while physicallyweaker than the other forces of nature,intervenes to transform the characteris-tics of action within the manifold of thebiosphere.

LaRouche then defines his ownadvance upon Vernadsky, in tworespects. First, he defines the physical-economic standard by which anti-entropy in the noösphere is to bedefined. LaRouche has previously iden-tified this concept as the principle ofpotential relative population density. Sec-ond, LaRouche identifies the interven-tion of human cognition, in organizingand developing the biosphere, as a socialand cultural process, and not simply asan individual’s physical action upon theuniverse.

Philosophical Method

The prospective reader should not har-bor fears that LaRouche’s discussionwill be too scientifically technical.LaRouche’s stress is on philosophicalmethod, and the way in which its successcan be measured in the physical uni-

verse. Thus, while amplifying on theintellectual roots of Vernadsky’s work,LaRouche also clearly identifies theapplicability of this method to the trans-formation of the biosphere in the formof the contemporary Eurasian Land-Bridge project. The development corri-dors across the tundra of Siberia and thedeserts of Central Asia, represent con-crete examples of how human (cogni-tive) political intentions can, with pre-dictable success, make thriving civiliza-tion out of a region which would appearto the uninformed eye to have no poten-tial usefulness at all.

In “The Gravity of Economic Inten-tions,” LaRouche takes up the questionof long-term economic planning, in therange of spans of 25 years or more, withparticular emphasis on the question ofinfrastructure. LaRouche has increas-ingly stressed the centrality of infra-structure spending for a healthy,expanding economy, and now estimatesthat “in modern society, roughly 40 to60 percent of the total investment indevelopment and maintenance of ahealthy national economy, will be situ-ated within the domain of basic eco-

The Stronger Force of Cognition

The Economics of theNoösphere

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.Washington, D.C., EIR News

Service, 2001326 pages, paperback, $20.00

79

In his Dec. 23, 2001 paper “ZbigniewBrzezinski and September 11th,”

dealing with September 11 as a coup-attempt in behalf of the “Clash of Civi-lizations” policy, Lyndon LaRouche callsSamuel P. Huntington’s first book, TheSoldier and the State: The Theory and Pol-itics of Civil-Military Relations, “the semi-nal writing from which the Clash ofCivilizations strategy has been derived.”

The book has gone through at leastfourteen printings since its first publica-tion in 1957, and is now required read-ing at West Point, apparently in mostother military academies in the WesternHemisphere, and in many courses inother colleges.

When it first appeared, there weresome who were still crude enough tonote what it actually said. The Nation’sreviewer ridiculed its “brutalsophistries,” and wrote that Mussolinihad made the same point better whenhe said, “Believe, obey, fight!” Hunting-ton and his close friend ZbigniewBrzezinski were denied tenure at Har-vard because of the book’s low intellec-tual quality, and perhaps because of itsfascist tendency as well. German-bornprofessor Carl J. Friedrich, one of theauthors of the postwar West GermanConstitution, led the opposition toHuntington. (Friedrich later invitedhim back to Harvard, however.)

‘Sparta in the Midst of Babylon’

After hundreds of pages of slap-dashsociological argument, which could

convince no one, Huntington finallygets to the point in the last pages of Sol-dier and State, when he contrasts hisvision of West Point with the nearbycivilian village of Highland Falls. “. . .The buildings [of Highland Falls] formno part of a whole: they are simply amotley, disconnected collection offrames coincidentally adjoining eachother, lacking common unity of pur-pose. On the military reservation theother side of South Gate, however,exists a different world. There isordered serenity. The parts do not existon their own, but accept their subordi-nation to the whole. Beauty and utilityare merged in gray stone. Neat lawnssurround compact, trim homes, eachidentified by the name and rank of itsoccupant. The buildings stand in fixedrelation to each other, part of an over-all plan, their character and stationsymbolizing their contributions, stoneand brick for the senior officers, woodfor the lower ranks. The post is suf-fused with the rhythm and harmonywhich comes when collective will sup-plants individual whim. West Point is acommunity of structured purpose, onein which the behavior of men is gov-erned by a code, the product of genera-tions. There is little room for presump-tion and individualism. The unity ofthe community incites no man to bemore than he is. In order is foundpeace; in discipline, fulfillment; in com-munity, security. The spirit of High-land Falls is embodied in Main Street.

The spirit of West Point is found in thegreat, gray, Gothic Chapel, startingfrom the hill and dominating ThePlain, calling to mind Henry Adams’remarks at Mont St. Michel on theunity of the military and religious spir-its. But the unity of the Chapel is evengreater. There join together the fourgreat pillars of society: Army, Govern-ment, College, and Church. . . .

“West Point embodies the militaryideal at its best; Highland Falls theAmerican spirit at its most common-place. West Point is a gray island in amany colored sea, a bit of Sparta in themidst of Babylon. Yet is it possible todeny that the military values—loyalty,duty, restraint, dedication—are the ones

nomic infrastructure.”And, of course, all three essays deal

substantially with the need for invest-ment in Classical education, to ensurethe necessary quality of the workforce;and, as LaRouche features in “ShrunkenHeads,” to provide a lasting cure for thedisease of racism.

Of particular interest, as well, is theinclusion in the appendix of the firstcomplete English translation of a 1938article by Vernadsky, entitled “On the

Fundamental Material-Energetic Dis-tinction Between Living and NonlivingNatural Bodies of the Biosphere.” Thistranslation first appeared in the Winter2000-2001 issue of 21st Century Science &Technology magazine, but has now beenmade available in this more permanentform.

According to the publisher, the firstprinting of The Economics of the Noö-sphere is almost sold out, thanks in nosmall part to the appreciation of the

Russian scientific intelligentsia ofLaRouche’s work in the Vernadsky tra-dition, and on the concrete problems ofeconomic existence in this bankruptworld financial system. With thedepression hitting home in the U.S.now, one would hope that these “heavy”ideas, which are the underpinning ofLaRouche’s authority as an economist,will soon become as widely discussed inthe West as well.

—Nancy Spannaus

80

A Chilling Look at Evil

The Soldier and the Stateby Samuel P. Huntington

Cambridge, Mass., Belknap Press,1957;1981

534 pages, paperback, $22.50

America most needs today? That thedisciplined order of West Point hasmore to offer than the garish individual-ism of Main Street? . . . Upon the sol-diers, the defenders of order, rests aheavy responsibility . . . .”

Organized Mediocrity

On the surface, Huntington’s book isan exaltation of the “military ethic,”which he claims is the necessary view-point of the “professional” military offi-cer, without whom the U.S. cannot besecure.

What is his military professionalism?To take an example which was a recentone in 1957: The Korean War was thebest example of military professionalismin U.S. history, according to Hunting-ton. The soldiers were not fighting forpolitical goals,— few knew what thosegoals might be in Korea. They werefighting out of loyalty to the institution,or simply waiting until their nine-month rotation ended.

And what is his “military ethic”?It is a pessimistic view, which sees

man as Hobbes saw him. It holds thatman is evil, reason is limited, andhuman nature is universal and

unchanging; all men everywhere arethe same. Man learns only from experi-ence, and as Field Marshal Mont-gomery said, there is no progress. Theimportance of the group is stressed asagainst that of the individual; the indi-vidual’s will is subordinated to thegroup. It is a corporative and anti-indi-vidualistic viewpoint.

The “nation-state” is the ultimateform of political organization, and com-petition among nation-states, and there-fore war as its continuation, areinevitable. Its cause is human nature.Nothing regulates states but power andexpediency.

Genius is superfluous and danger-ous,— what is needed is organizedmediocrity. There should be no granddesigns or sweeping goals.

The greatest virtue is “instant obedi-ence,” cheerful and unthinking. “Theirsis not to reason why,” Huntingtonwrites approvingly.

This much Huntington.

Extreme Evil

Is it not chilling to read in a contempo-rary American textbook, many of thevery same dogmas from which the Nazi

movement arose in post-World War IGermany, as Armin Möhler and othershave documented? It is chilling just asSeptember 11 was chilling,— how couldwe possibly have overlooked so extremean evil for so long?

Along with his close friend Zbig-niew Brzezinski, and with HenryKissinger and McGeorge Bundy,Huntington was a creation of Harvardprofessor William Yandell Elliott, anagent of British influence and life-longneo-Confederate of the “NashvilleAgrarian” tradition exposed by StanleyEzrol.1 Soldier and State argues thatmilitary professionalism in the U.S.came from the South, with its cultiva-tion of violence, chivalry, the militaryideal, and an atavistic feudal romanti-cism à la Sir Walter Scott. Thus, Hunt-ington notes parenthetically that theonly American group ever to have beendispossessed of its property, was theSouthern slaveowners.

—Antony Papert

1. Stanley Ezrol, “Seduced from Victory:How the ‘Lost Corpse’ Subverts theAmerican Intellectual Tradition,” Execu-tive Intelligence Review, Aug. 3, 2001 (Vol.28, No. 29).

When Lyndon LaRouche, speakingon a live radio interview on the

fateful morning of September 11, wasable to identify without hesitation thatthe ongoing assault against the UnitedStates was an attempted coup d’état, runfrom within the U.S., which would beblamed entirely, but falsely, on Osamabin Laden, he was drawing on over thir-ty years’ experience in directing researchprojects by the investigative staff of thepublication he created, Executive Intelli-gence Review (EIR), into how terrorismactually works. LaRouche has demon-strated that, in reality, terrorism is“irregular warfare,” with secret sponsorsat the levels of major government intel-ligence services.

Soon after September 11, LaRouche’swarnings about the policy behind the

coup d’état began to take shape, as a net-work of active and former governmentofficials tried to steer the “war againstterrorism” into becoming a worldwidereligious war, pitting the U.S. and its“allies” against “Islam.” Known as the“Clash of Civilizations,” this theory hadbeen crafted decades earlier by cohortsof Zbigniew Brzezinski, British-opera-tive Bernard Lewis of Princeton, andSamuel P. Huntington of Harvard.

In the interest of stopping that insanedrive for global religious war, LyndonLaRouche’s Presidential election cam-paign, LaRouche in 2004, has releasedtwo Special Reports, reproducing por-tions of the EIR studies, going back to1985, on narco-terrorism and interna-tional money laundering, with the addi-tion of interviews with LaRouche, and

81

September 11: The Truth, Not the Cover Story

How To Defeat GlobalStrategic Irregular Warfare

Washington, D.C., LaRouche in2004, October 2001

208 pages, paperback, $75.00

updates on the current strategic and eco-nomic crisis by LaRouche and others.

Issued for the benefit of policy mak-ers and public officials, as well as for theAmerican people and concerned citizensaround the world, these publicationshave already been reproduced through-out the world, from Brazil to Saudi Ara-bia, and from Italy to the Philippines. Itis notable that as these reports circulat-ed, LaRouche has been repeatedly citedas the single American statesman whohas not refused to address the truth—namely, that the magnitude of the Sep-tember 11 attacks and the magnitude ofthe intelligence failures involved, provethat it was “an inside job.” This is all themore important because, while thenations in the coalition universally agreeon the necessity to stop terrorism, thereis little belief that such a major act ofwarfare as the events of September 11was carried out by Osama bin Laden.

In-Depth Background

The two reports go a long way to identi-fying the hand of the key institutions ofthe Anglo-American establishment,including Wall Street and certain U.S.special warfare operations, in creatingterrorism.

In reading the excerpts from the1980’s and 1990’s EIR studies today, thereader is able to reflect on the prescienceand accuracy of the warning that irregu-lar warfare was a means to impose a pol-icy of “divide and conquer,” by thosewho aspire to a new imperium. Thereports also force the question of whyelected officials and the media in theU.S. have chosen to deny or neglectthese facts, still today, even thoughneglecting them has brought the worldto the abyss of a new Dark Age.

The first report, How To DefeatGlobal Strategic Irregular Warfare, beginswith the transcript of that now-famousSeptember 11 interview with LaRouche,conducted by Salt Lake City radio hostJack Stockwell, and continues with asecond LaRouche interview conductedby EIR, one week after the attack.

It includes in full several 1995 reportsfrom EIR on the creation of the “irregu-lar warfare” capacity during the late1970’s and 1980’s, as part of the U.S.,

British, and Israeli sponsorship of Islam-ic covert armies to fight the SovietUnion in Afghanistan. Following theSoviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in1989, the terrorist cells, financed largelythrough arms and drug trafficking,were dispersed to all corners of theglobe, to be used as geopolitical weaponsby the intelligence services which hadcreated them. The role of London asheadquarters of the so-called “Afghansi”terrorist networks, to be deployedagainst targetted governments, fromEgypt to Russia to the Philippines, isthoroughly documented.

As long as the controllers of this ter-rorist capacity remain in place, thereport argues, no manner of militaryoperations against the mere deployableparts, in Afghanistan or elsewhere, willalleviate the continuing threat of irregu-lar warfare against the U.S., nor againstany other country on Earth.

Shut Down ‘Dope, Inc.’

The second report, To Stop Terrorism—Shut Down ‘Dope, Inc.,’ carries on itscover the now (in)famous photo of thewarm embrace exchanged betweenNew York Stock Exchange chiefRichard Grasso and narcoterroristFARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces ofColombia) leader Raul Reyes. The con-tents include extensive reprints from the

Third Edition of EIR’s out-of-print bestseller, Dope, Inc.: Britain’s Opium WarAgainst the U.S., which demonstrates theactual control of the $600-billion-plusdrug business by the leading financialhouses of London, New York, and theBritish Commonwealth.

Thus, in combination, the tworeports lay bare the truth of the totalinterface between drugs, terror, and theAnglo-American financial oligarchy.

In his Preface to the report on“Dope, Inc.,” LaRouche identifies threeaspects of the interface between theworld financial institutions and the pro-motion and use of terrorism by the U.S.and other leading governments: First,the creation of “deniability” of involve-ment by such governments in terroristcovert actions, by the use of money-laundering capacities related to drugand arms trafficking; second, large-scale state-sponsored warfare, like thatof the 1970’s-1980’s Afghan war withthe Soviet Union, financed by drug pro-ceeds; and third, the logistics of the ter-rorist and money-laundering apparatus,which leads to off-shore money centersand the speculative operations in NewYork and London, especially the deriv-atives bubble.

LaRouche concludes: “Without shut-ting down all three of these types ofchannels, no effective blocking of inter-national terrorism were possible.”

These Special Reports are mandatoryreading for those who want to stop ter-rorism, and especially for inquiringminds that question the official “coverstory.” Happily, the reports have beencomplemented by other publications onthe September 11 attacks and its after-math, which have been issued assequential “Crisis Bulletins.” Theseappear on LaRouche’s campaign web-site, www.larouchein2004.com, wherethe reader can also review LaRouche’srecent presentations to a large number ofinternational seminars and conferences.

In addition, LaRouche has authoredthe study, “Zbigniew Brzezinski andSeptember 11th,” which will be the cen-terpiece of a third campaign SpecialReport, due to be released in early 2002.We look forward to its publication.

—Michael Billington

82

To Stop Terrorism, Shut Down“Dope, Inc.”

Washington, D.C., LaRouche in2004, December 2001

147 pages with full index,paperback, $75.00

AUTHOR, TITLE (abbrev). Quantity Price

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________Subtotal _________

Shipping** _________Sales tax _________

(Va. residents add 4.5%)

Total _________

Call Toll-Free: 1(800)453-4108Northern Virginia: (703)777-3661 FAX: (703)777-8287e-mail: benfranklin_books@yahoo.com

Or mail your order to:

Ben Franklin Booksellers P.O. Box 1707 Leesburg, VA 20177

Make check or money order payable to:Ben Franklin Booksellers

**Shipping and handling (U.S.): $4.00 for first book$1.00 each additional book. Additional shipping infor-mation available on request. Allow 3-4 weeks for deliv-ery. Books shipped fourth class mail.

Credit card orders: Please charge my

Mastercard Visa Am. Exp. Discover

Card No. _________________ Expires _________

Signature __________________________________

Basic Books of the LaRouche Political MovementCall or write for our free catalogue.

Ben Franklin Booksellers

Aeschylus II, includes‘Prometheus Bound’, U.Chicago, paperback, $6.95

Plato: Complete Works, ed.by John M. Cooper, Hackett,hardcover, $42.50

Philo Judaeus: Works ofPhilo, Hendrickson,hardcover, $29.95

St. Augustine: The City ofGod, Penguin, paperback,$15.95

And Muhammed Is HisMessenger: The Venera-tion of the Prophet inIslamic Piety, AnnemarieSchimmel, Kazi, paperback,$19.95

The Arabs, A Short History,Philip K. Hitti, Regnery,paperback, $12.95

Poems of Arab Andalusia,trans. by Cola Franzen, CityLights, paperback, $10.95

Convivencia: Jews, Muslims,and Christians in MedievalSpain, ed. by Vivian D. Mannand Thomas F. Glick, GeorgeBraziller, paperback, $25.00

Doctor Illuminatus: ARamon Llull Reader,Princeton U.P., paperback,$21.95

Toward a New Council ofFlorence: ‘On the Peace ofFaith’ and Other Works byNicolaus of Cusa, SchillerInstitute, paperback, $15.00

Portable Dante, trans. byMark Musa, includes ‘TheDivine Comedy,’ Penguin,paperback, $15.95

Petrarch: Lyric Poems, duallanguage, Harvard U.P.,paperback, $22.00

Gotthold Lessing: Nathanthe Wise and Other Playsand Writings, Continuum,paperback, $16.95

Moses Mendelssohn:Jerusalem, or On ReligiousPower and Judaism,University Press of N.E.,paperback, $19.95

The Analects of Confucius,trans. by Simon Leys, W.W.Norton, paperback, $12.95

G.W. Leibniz: Writings onChina, Open Court, paperback,$17.95

Chinese Civilization: ASourcebook, ed. by Patricia B.Ebrey, Free Press, paper, $19.95

Jawaharlal Nehru:The Discovery of India,Oxford U.P., paperback,$14.95

India, A Concise History,Francis Watson, Thames and Hudson, paperback,illustrated, $15.95

Abraham Lincoln: SelectedSpeeches and Writings,Random House Vintage,paperback, $16.00

Testament of Hope:Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr.,Spring Arbor, paperback,$22.50

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.:The Economics of theNoösphere, EIR, paperback,$20.00

Successful dialogue.

For successful dialogue, there must be a search for unanimity on some provable universalprinciple, of the sort which is demonstrably embedded in the nature of mankind’s relationship

to the universe in which we live. The functional characteristic of that dialogue is cognitive,rather than deductive or symbolic, since the implied purpose of the dialogue is to detect anderadicate axiomatic assumptions which both divide us and which are demonstrably false.

—LYNDON H. LAROUCHE, JR.‘Jesus Christ and Civilization,’ Sept. 22, 2000

NAME _____________________________________________

ADDRESS ___________________________________________

CITY _______________________ STATE ________ ZIP _______

e-mail _____________________________________________

TEL NO. ____________________________________________

Occupation /Affiliation ______________________________________

_________________________________________________

Clip and send together with check or money order to:

Schiller Institute, Inc.P.O. Box 20244, Washington, D.C. 20041-0244

The Schiller Institute has been fighting since 1984 to bringabout a new Golden Renaissance out of the depths of thecurrent Dark Age. Giants like Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa,Leonardo da Vinci, and France’s King Louis XI stroveagainst evil to give the world the new birth of freedom andcreativity that we know as the Golden Renaissance ofFifteenth-Century Europe. Today, too, it will take the work

of key individuals, like you, to create a new Renaissance.JOIN THE SCHILLER INSTITUTE TODAY AND BEPART OF THIS GREAT EFFORT. Your membershipwill help finance the Institute’s work in bringing Classicalculture to America and combatting the evil of theConservative Revolution. Help make a new GoldenRenaissance a reality today!

Join the Schiller Institute!

JoinThe Fight for

A New GoldenRenaissance!

$ CLIP AND SEND

Sign me up as a member of the Schiller Institute

o $1,000 Lifetime Membership (includes LIFETIMESUBSCRIPTION to Fidelio and 100 issues of New Federalist—$35value).

o $ 500 Sustaining Membership (includes 20 issues of Fidelio and 100issues of New Federalist).

o $ 100 Regular Annual Membership (includes 20 issues of Fidelio and 100 issues of New Federalist).

ORI wish only to subscribe to Fidelioo $ 20 for four issues

If it is true that the level of development of aculture can be judged, in significant part at

least, by the status of women in that society,then the Italian Renaissance produced arevolution in this regard—among all theothers for which it is so justly famous. And therevolutionary idea that women should developtheir intellectual powers, drawing uponClassical humanist education, was reflected inhow women were portrayed in the paintingsand sculpture of the age.

This view of theimportance of women ismost poetically expressed inthe inscription placed on thereverse side of Leonardo daVinci’s portrait of Ginevrade’ Benci: “Virtutem FormaDecorat,” “Beauty AdornsVirtue,” from which thecurrent exhibit atWashington’s NationalGallery takes its title,“Virtue and Beauty:Leonardo da Vinci’s‘Ginevra de’ Benci’ andRenaissance Portraits ofWomen.” The portrait of

Ginevra, a woman of renowned intelligenceand grace, is, arguably, the most importantpainting owned by the National Gallery—theonly painting by Leonardo in the Americas.She is the most fascinating of all the youngwomen portrayed in this collection, whichderives almost entirely fromFifteenth- and Sixteenth-centuryFlorence, i.e., the high-point ofthe Golden Renaissance.

That women appeared assecular subjects at this time ishighly significant. But, the originsof such female portraiture are tobe found in two earlier sources:First, in the Italian vernacularpoetry of Dante and Petrarch;and, second, in Renaissanceportrayals of the Virgin, especiallythose of the Annunciation, whereshe is virtually universallypresented as an intellectualwoman, interrupted by the angelGabriel while reading a book.

In Dante’s Commedia, theRoman poet Virgil leads Dantethrough Hell, and up the Mountof Purgatory, until reaching the Wall of Fire,through which he must pass before enteringEarthly Paradise. But, when Dante reaches theWall, it is Beatrice alone who is able to givehim the courage to enter the flames. And it is

Beatrice—who for Danterepresents DivineWisdom—who must leadhim upwards through theHeavenly spheres, to lookdirectly into the face ofGod, as he does at theconclusion of the Paradiso;while along the way, sheinstructs him in theRenaissance sciences ofphysics and astrophysics.

The Heavenly Guide

Leonardo da Vinci, ‘Ginevrade’ Benci,’ c. 1474-1478.

DomenicoGhirlandaio,‘Giovanna degliAlbizzi Tornabuoni,’c. 1488/1490.

Sandro Botticelli, ‘Woman at a Window(Smeralda Brandini?),’ c. 1470/1475.

Nat

iona

lGal

lery

ofA

rt,W

ashi

ngto

n,A

lisa

Mel

lon

Bru

ceF

und

Vic

toria

and

Alb

ertM

useu

m,L

ondo

n

Mus

eoT

hyss

en-B

orne

mis

za,M

adrid

The events of September 11 mark anexplosive escalation of the drive for

‘Clash of Civilizations’ religiouswarfare, as the oligarchy’s response tothe disintegration of the world financialsystem. But, the unfolding political andeconomic crisis also poses revolutionaryopportunities to restore the dynamic ofglobal progress, lost since the death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and now posed by LyndonLaRouche’s New Bretton Woods and Eurasian Land-Bridge programs.

With this Symposium, we continue our efforts to spark a global renaissance of ideas amongst the leaders ofnations and peoples everywhere. Such a renaissance must proceed, as the ideas of scientist-statesman Nicolaus of Cusa shaped Europe’s Golden Renaissance of the Fifteenth century, through dialogue on the aspirations ofman and society at the highest, most universal level—in which the historical

contributions of different cultural traditionsare harnessed to the task of overcomingtoday’s crisis, through the affirmation of man’sunique responsibility, as a cognitive being, tocontinue the work of Creation through theglobal development of society.

Helga Zepp LaRouche introduces theSymposium, with a invitation to participatein an ‘International Correspondence for aDialogue of Cultures.’ Contributions byLyndon LaRouche, and recent publicstatements by President Mubarak of Egypt,President Khatami of Iran, and Pope JohnPaul II, are included.

In This Issue

An Evening in the ‘Simultaneity of Eternity’—With Shakespeare, Keats, and William Warfield

In September, members of the Houston SchillerInstitute reviewed the poetry of Shakespeare and

John Keats with renowned baritone Dr. WilliamWarfield. Dan Leach reports on the paradoxes of

‘temporal eternity’ to be found in the poems, and onDr. Warfield’s insistence that, to be truthful, Classical

art must convey the passion inherent in thecommunication of ideas.

DIALOGUEOf

CIVILIZATIONSA Symposium

Lyndon H.LaRouche, Jr.

Pope John Paul II President Seyyed Mohammad Khatami

UN

/DP

IPho

to/S

usan

Mar

kisz

EIR

NS

/Stu

artL

ewis

EIRNS/Gene Schenk

Arm

enia

nP

resi

dent

Koc

haria

n’s

web

site