Comrades all:

After three sessions where this issue has been discussed, when many interesting things have been said; and knowing many of them have been discussed even though others have been left unanswered for the moment -- although it was materially impossible to addressed each and every one the matters brought to these meetings--- It is now our turn out of necessity, not as the person most qualified to speak about this matter, but considering this is been a meeting you and us, to express here certain points of view.

We were very much interested in these discussions. I believe we have proven it with what some call “a great deal of patience” (Laughter). In reality though, no heroic effort has been necessary because it has been an instructive discussion for us and honestly, it has been pleasant.

Of course, in this kind of discussion, were we men of the Government are also taking part--- at least, that is the case with respect to me---we are not the best position to discuss matters in which you are specialists. For us, the fact of being men of the Government and agents of this Revolution does not mean that we are obliged to have a profound knowledge of all these matters. Perhaps we should be but

In reality, it does not mean we have to be experts on all subjects. It is possible that if we have taken some of the comrades who have spoken here to a meeting of the Council of Ministers to discuss the matters we are more familiar with they would have experience a situation similar to ours.

We have been agents of this Revolution, of the socioeconomic revolution that is taking place in Cuba. Likewise, that economic and social Revolution must inevitably produce a cultural revolution in our country.

For our part, we have tried to do something. Perhaps during the first moments of the Revolution there were other more urgent problems to attend to. We could also be self-critical by saying that we have put aside the discussion of such an important matter.

This does not mean that we completely ignored it. This discussion ---which was perhaps accelerated by the incident which has been referred to repeatedly in this --- was already been considered by the Government. We have dad the calling for a meeting like this to discuss the issue of culture for several months now. The events that have been taking place--- especially the latest events--- were the cause that prevented us from holding this meeting before. Still, the Revolutionary Government had been taking a number of measures that expressed our concern with this problem.

Something has been done, and several comrades in the Government have insisted in addressing this issue on more than one occasion. Therefore, it can be said that the Revolution has itself brought some changes already in the cultural environment: the working conditions of artists have changed.

I believe that some negative aspects have been slightly emphasized here. I believe that there is been a concern that goes beyond any real justification on the matter. Almost no emphasis has been made on the fact of the changes operated in respect to the cultural environment and the situation for writers and artists today.

Comparing it with the past, it is unquestionable that Cuban artists and writers cannot feel like in the past, and that the conditions of the past were truly depressing.

If the Revolution started by bringing in itself a profound change in the environment and in the conditions, why fear that the Revolution that brought us those new working conditions may stifle those conditions? Why fear that the Revolution would liquidate the conditions it has brought?

It is true that the problem being discussed here is not a simple one. It is true that we all have the duty of analyzing it carefully. This is both an obligation of yours as it is an obligation of ours.

It is not a simple problem, since it is a problem that has been raised many times and has been posed in all revolutions. This is a web ----we could say--- very much entangle and it is not easy to untangle such a web. It is not a problem that we will resolve easily.

Several comrades have expressed a great many of points of view, and they have done so with their arguments.

There was some fear of getting into the subject during the first day of the meeting, and this why it was necessary for us to request the comrades to address the problem, so that everyone could explain their fears, so that everyone here could say what might trouble him

At the bottom of all, unless we are mistaken, the main problem hovering here in this environment was the problem of freedom for artistic creation. This issue has also been brought to our attention more than once when various foreign writers have visited us, and not just literary writes but political ones. It is obviously an issue that has been discussed in all countries where profound revolutions such as ours have taken place.

By coincidence, just before we returned to this hall a comrade brought us a pamphlet. On the cover of it, or at the end, there is a short dialogue which we had with Sartre which Comrade Lisandro Otero transcribed with the title Conversaciones en la Laguna (Conversations at La Laguna) (Revolución, Tuesday 8 March 1960). Wright Mills, the American writer, brought a similar matter to us on another occasion.

I must confess that, in a sense, these matters took us rather off-guard; we did not have our “Yemen Conference” with Cuban artists and writers during the Revolution. Actually, this is a revolution that was built and came to power in record time one could say. Unlike other revolutions, it did not have all the main problems solved. Moreover, and just as a result of this, one of the features of the Revolution has been the need of facing many problems hurriedly.

And we are like the Revolution, that is, we have improvised a great deal. This is why it cannot be said that this Revolution has had the stage of gestation, which others have enjoyed, nor have the leaders of the Revolution the intellectual maturity of the leaders of other revolutions. .

We believe we have contributed to the best of our strengths to the current events in our country. We believe that we the effort of all we are pushing a true revolution forward and that that revolution is developing and is called to become one of the most important events of this century. Nevertheless, despite that reality, we, who have played an important role in those events, do not believe ourselves to be theoreticians of revolutions or intellectuals of revolutions.

If men are to be judged by their deeds, perhaps we might have the right of considering ourselves with the merit of what the undertaking of the Revolution means in itself, however we do not think that way. An I believe that we should all have a similar attitude. Whatever our deeds could have been, no matter how meritorious they may seem, we must start by placing ourselves in an honest standpoint of not assuming we have comprehended everything that is to be learned, of not assuming that our points of view are infallible, and that all those who do not think exactly the same way are mistaken. That is to say, that we must put ourselves in that honest perspective, not one of false modesty, but one of true assessment of our knowledge. Because if we place ourselves in that perspective I believe, it will be easier to march forward with certainty and in the right direction. And I believe that if we place ourselves in this point --- both you and we – then in face of that reality, personal attitudes will disappear, and that certain amount of personalism, which we put into the analysis of problems, will disappear.

Actually, what do we know? In reality, we are all learning. We all in deed have much to learn.

And we, for instance, have not come here to teach. We have also come here to learn too.

There were certain fears in the air, and some comrades have expressed those fears. Actually, at times, we were under the impression that we were somehow dreaming, we were under the impression that we had not yet placed our feet on the ground

Because if there is any concern in our minds today, if there is any fear it is with respect to the Revolution itself. The greatest concern which all of us must have is the Revolution in itself. Or is it that we believe that we have already won all the revolutionary battles? Is it that we believe that the Revolution has no enemies? Is it that we believe that the there are no dangers haunting the Revolution?

What must be the primary concern of all citizens today? The concern that the Revolution might exceed itself in its measures, that the Revolution would suffocate art that the Revolution is going to suffocate the creative genius of our citizens? Or should not the Revolution itself be the concern of everyone? The real or imaginary dangers that might threaten the creative spirit or the dangers that might threaten the Revolution itself?

It is not that we intend to invoke this danger as a simple argument. We are basically stating that the state of mind of all the citizens of this country and that of all the revolutionary writers and artists or of all the writers and artists who understand and justify the Revolution is what dangers may threaten the Revolution and what we can do to help the Revolution.

We believe that the Revolution has many battles yet to wage, and we believe that our first thought and our first concern should be what we can do so that the Revolution shall prevail. Because that comes first. what is first is the Revolution itself, and then we can take occupy ourselves with the other matters.

This does not mean that we are not to be concerned about other matters, but that our state of mind – at least our resolve-- is to have the Revolution as our fundamental concern.

The problem that has been, discussed here-- and which we are going to address-- is the problem of freedom for the writers and artists to express themselves. The fear that has caused concern here is if the Revolution could stifle that freedom, whether the Revolution is going to stifle the creative spirit of writers and artists.

Formal freedom was discussed here. Everyone agreed on the issue of formal freedom. That is everyone agreed and I believe that there are no doubts in regards to this problem.

The matter becomes more subtle and basically becomes the essential point of the matter when freedom of content is addressed. There lays the more subtle aspect because is the one more expose to the most diverse interpretations. It is the most controversial aspect of this matter: whether there should be absolute freedom of content in artistic expression or not.

It seems to us that some comrades defend that point of view. Perhaps it was the fear to what was referred to as prohibitions, regulations, limitations, rules, and authorities to decide on the matter.

First of all, allow me to tell you that the Revolution defends freedom; that the Revolution has brought a great sum of freedoms to the country; That the Revolution cannot because of its very essence, be an enemy of freedoms, and that if anyone fears that the Revolution is going to asphyxiate his creative spirit, that concern is unnecessary, and that concern has no grounds whatsoever.

Where can the raison d'etre of that concern be? True concern about this problem can only exist when one is not certain of his revolutionary convictions. Only he who is not confident of his true capacity for creation can harbor concerns about this problem.

And one could wonder if a true revolutionary, if a true artist or intellectual who feels for the Revolution, and who is certain that he is able of serving the Revolution can pose himself this problem. That is, the existence of is no longer among writers and artists who are truly revolutionary, the doubt will exist among writers and artists who without being counterrevolutionary are not revolutionary either. (Applause.)

It is correct that hat a writer or artist who does not feel himself to be a true revolutionary would pose himself thin problem. That is, that an honest writer, and honest artist who is capable of understanding the raison d'etre and the justice of the Revolution can pose himself this problem. Because the revolutionary places something above all other matters. The revolutionary places something above even his own creative spirit. That is, he puts the Revolution first and above everything else. And the most revolutionary artist would be the one who is willing to sacrifice even his own artistic call for the Revolution. (Applause.)

No one has ever assumed that all men, or that all writers, or all artists have to be revolutionaries, just as no one can assume that all men or all revolutionaries have to be artists, or that every honest man must be a revolutionary just because of the fact of being honest. Being a revolutionary is also an attitude to life. Being a revolutionary is also an attitude toward the current reality. And there are men who are resigned to that reality. There are men who adapt to that reality: and there are also men who cannot resign themselves to or adapt to that reality and who try to change it, and because of that, they are revolutionaries.

Nonetheless, there can be men who adapt to that reality and yet are honest men, it is just that their spirit is not a revolutionary spirit, and it is just that that their attitude to reality is not a revolutionary attitude. . And of course, there can be artists, good artists in deed, who do not have a revolutionary attitude to lifer.

And it is precisely for that group of artists and intellectuals that the Revolution in itself constitutes an unanticipated event, a new event, an event that could even profoundly affect their state of mind. It is precisely this group of artists and intellectuals for whom the Revolution may constitute a problem to face.

For a mercenary artist or intellectual, or a dishonest artist or intellectual it would not be a problem. That person knows what he has to do, that person knows what his interests are, and knows which way he has to go. It is really a problem only for the artist or the intellectual, who does not have a revolutionary attitude to life and who, is an honest person nonetheless.

It is obvious that a person with that attitude toward life, whether he is a revolutionary or not, and whether or not he is an artist, has his purposes and goals. And call all wonder about those purposes and goals. Those ends and goals are aimed at changing that reality, those ends and goals are directed toward the redemption of man. And these ends and goals are aimed towards the redemption of man himself, the redemption of one’s neighbor that is the main goal of revolutionaries.

If we revolutionaries what is it that matters the most to us we shall say: the people. And we will always say: the people. The people in its real meaning, that is, that majority of the people that has been forced to live in exploitation and in the cruelest abandonment. Our fundamental concern will always be the great majorities of the people, that is, the oppressed and exploited classes of the people. That is the prism through which we look at everything. For us whatever is good for them will always be good: for us, whatever is noble, useful, and beautiful for the people will be noble, useful, and beautiful to us.

If one does not think that way, if one does not think for the people and for the interest of the people, that is to say, if one does not think and act for the sake of that exploited masses of the people, for the benefit of that mass which deserves and expects redemption, then one does not have revolutionary attitude. At least, we analyze the good, the useful, and the beautiful in every action through that crystal.

We understand it must be tragic for someone to understand this and nonetheless has to reconcile himself with fact that he is incapable of fighting for it. We are, or we believe ourselves to be, revolutionary men. If someone feels he is more an artist than he is a revolutionary, that person cannot as we do. We are fighting for the people and we do not suffer any conflict because we are fighting for the people and we are certain that we will attain the goals of our struggles.

The people is our main goal. We must think of the people before we think of ourselves, and this is the only attitude that can be defined as a truly revolutionary attitude. And those who cannot have or do not have that attitude, but who are honest persons, are the ones who see the problem we are referring to. Moreover, just as the Revolution constitutes a problem to them; they too constitute a problem for the Revolution, a problem that the Revolution must concern itself with.

The case of many writers and artists who were not revolutionaries, but who nevertheless were honest artists and writers and who also wanted to help the Revolution; and in whose help the Revolution was interested been rightfully raised here. It is someone who wanted to work for the Revolution. The Revolution was also interested in them contributing their knowledge and efforts to the benefit of the Revolution. It is easier to asses this when particular cases are analyzed. And among these particular cases, there are many that cannot be analyzed so easily.

However, a Catholic writer spoke here; He stated what his concern was and did so with total clarity. He asked if he could make an interpretation from his idealistic point of view about a given problem or whether he could write a piece defending those points of view of his own. He asked with total honesty whether within a revolutionary regime he could express himself conveying those feelings, in accordance with those feelings. He stated the problem in a manner that might be considered symbolic. He wanted to know was whether he could write in accordance with those feelings or in accordance with that Ideology, which was not precisely the ideology of the Revolution. He stated that he agreed with the Revolution on social or economic matters, but he held a philosophical stand different from that of the Revolution.

This is a case deserving of consideration, because it is precisely a case representative of the area of writers and artists who had a favorable disposition in regards to the Revolution and who wanted to know what degree of freedom they would enjoy within the revolutionary conditions to express their feelings.

This is the sector that constitutes a problem for the Revolution, just as the Revolution constitutes a problem for them. And it is the Revolution’s duty to be concerned with these cases. It is the Revolution’s duty to be concerned with the situation of these artists and these writers. Because the Revolution must aspire to having not just all the revolutionaries and all the revolutionary artists and intellectuals marching on side-by-side with it. It is possible that the men and women who have a truly revolutionary attitude toward reality do not constitute the majority sector of the population; revolutionaries are the vanguard of the people, but revolutionaries must aspire to having all the people join them in that march. The Revolution cannot renounce having all honest men and women march along with it, whether or not they are writers or artists. The Revolution must aspire to having everyone who harbor doubts become a revolutionary. The Revolution must try to have the majority of the people to share its ideas. The Revolution must never renounce counting on the majority of the people, counting not just on the revolutionaries, but also on all honest citizens who despite not being revolutionaries, that is, who do not have a revolutionary attitude in life, are still with the Revolution. The Revolution should only renounce those who are incorrigible are incorrigible reactionaries, who are incorrigible counterrevolutionaries.

And the Revolution must have a policy for that part of the people. The Revolution must have an attitude for that segment of the intellectuals and writers. The Revolution must understand that reality; and therefore, must act in a manner that all that sector of artists and intellectuals who are not genuinely revolutionaries, realize that within the Revolution they have room to work and to create; and that their creative spirit, even if they are not revolutionary writers or artists, has the opportunity and the freedom to express itself. That is, within the Revolution.

This means that within the Revolution everything, against the Revolution, nothing. Against the Revolution nothing because the Revolution has also its rights and the first right of the Revolution is the right to exist. And against the Revolution’s right to be and to exist, no one – because the Revolution understands the interests of the people, because the Revolutions signifies the interests of the entire nation --- no one can rightly claim a right against it I believe this is perfectly clear.

What are the rights of writers and artists whether they are revolutionary or not Within the Revolution, everything against the Revolution, no rights at all. (Applause.)

And this would not be any law of exception for writers and artists. This is a general principle for all citizens. This a fundamental principle of the Revolution. Counterrevolutionaries, that is, the enemies of the Revolution, have no right against the Revolution whatsoever, because the Revolution has a fundamental right: the right to exist, the right to develop, and the right to prevail. Who can dare question that right of a people that has said: "Homeland or Death," that is, Revolution or death? That is, Revolution or Death The existence of the Revolution or nothing. The existence of a Revolution that has said "We Shall be Victorious,” That is, the Revolution has commented itself to a purpose, and no matter how respectable the personal reasoning of an enemy of the Revolution might be, the rights and the reasons of a Revolution are way more respectable, and more so when one considers that a revolution is a historic process, when one considers that a revolution is not and cannot be the result of one man’s caprices or will, when one considers that a revolution can only be expression of the need and the will of a people. And against the rights of an entire people, the rights of that people´s enemies do not count.

When we spoke of extreme cases, we did so simply to express our ideas with more clarity. I have said already that there a whole host of different mental attitudes between those two extremes and there are also a great variety of concerns. It does not necessarily mean that harboring some concerns implies not being a revolutionary. We have tried to establish essential attitudes.

The Revolution cannot pretend to asphyxiate art or culture, when one of the goals and one of the main purposes of the Revolution is to develop art and culture, precisely so that art and culture become a true patrimony of the people. And just as we have envisioned a better life for the people from the material perspective, we envision a better life for the people spiritually. We want a better life for the people from the cultural perspective. And just as the Revolution concerns itself with the development of the conditions and the forces that enable the satisfaction of all the material needs of the people, we also want to develop all the conditions that would enable the satisfaction of all the cultural needs of the people.

Someone might wonder. Does not the people have a low cultural level? Is it not true that a high percentage of the people do not know how to read or write? There is also a high percentage of the people going hungry, or at least is living or lived under very harsh conditions. It lived in conditions of extreme poverty. Part of the people lacks a great deal of material goods, which to them are indispensable, and we are intent to create the necessary conditions to bring all those material goods to the people. Likewise, we must provide the necessary conditions for all these cultural goods to reach the people.

This does not mean that the artist has to sacrifice the value of his creations, or that their quality must necessarily be sacrificed. It does not mean that! It means that we have to strive in all aspects so that the creator produces for the people, and at the same time have the people increase their cultural level to somehow approach that of the creators.

No rule of thumb can be established here. Not all artistic manifestations exactly share the same nature: and at times, we have addressed matters here as if all artistic manifestations shared exactly the same nature. There are expressions of the creative spirit, which because of their very nature are way more accessible to the people than other manifestations of the creative spirit. This is why no rule of thumb can be established, because in which artistic expression must the artist go to the people and in which one must the people go to the artist instead? Can an all-encompassing statement be made in this regard? No. That would be too simple a rule!

Efforts have to be made in all manifestations to reach the people. Meanwhile we must do everything within our reach so the people can understand ever more and ever better, I believe this principle does not contradict the aspirations of any artist, and much less so if one takes into consideration that in principle men are to create for their contemporaries. I hope no one will say that there are artists preoccupied about posterity, because of course without intending to have our judgement considered infallible or anything of the sort , I believe that anyone who thinks that way in a trance of auto-suggestion. (Applause.)

However, that does not mean that someone working for his contemporaries has to renounce prosperity for his work. Because it is precisely by creating for his contemporaries, regardless even of whether his contemporaries understand him or not is that the works of art have acquired a historical and a universal value.

We are not making a Revolution for the generations to come. We are making a Revolution with this generation and for this generation, regardless of the fact that the benefits of this undertaking may benefit future generations and become a historical event. We are not making a Revolution for posterity. This Revolution will be preserved for prosperity because it is a Revolution for today and for the men and women of the today. (Applause.)

Who would follow us if we were making a Revolution for the generations to come? We work and create for our contemporaries, which does deny deprive any artistic creation of the merit of aspiring to eternity.

These are truths that we all must analyze with honesty and I believe that we must ground ourselves on certain fundamental truths to prevent us from drawing erroneous conclusions. We do not see there is any reason for concern for any honest artist of writer.

We are not enemies of freedom. No one here is an enemy of freedom. Whom do we fear? What authority do we fear is going to suffocate our creative spirit? Which comrades of the National Council for Culture?

Out of the impressions we have drawn from our conversations with the comrades of the National Council for Culture, we have observed points of view and feelings that are very distant from the concerns expressed here about limitations, nooses, and things of the sort forced on the creative spirit. Our conclusion is that the comrades on the National Council are as concerned as all of you are to facilitate the best conditions for the development of the creative spirit of artists and intellectuals.

Is it that we fear the existence of a national body, which is a duty of the Revolution and the Revolutionary Government, to have a highly qualified body which stimulates, fosters, develops, and orients, yes, orients that creative spirit. We consider this a duty! And could this possibly be considered an attack on the rights of writers and artists? Could this constitute a threat to the rights of writers and artists, out of fear for arbitrary acts or an excess of authority? Likewise, we might also harbor the fear that when passing through a stop light a police officer will attack us, just as we might harbor the fear that a judge will convict us. In the same way we could fear that the force that rest on the revolutionary power commits an act of violence against us, that is, that in such case we would have to be concerned about all these things. Nevertheless, the attitude of the citizen is not to believe that the militiaman will fire upon him, or that the judge will convict him or that, the authorities are going use violence against his person.

The existence of an authority in the area of culture does not mean that there may be a reason to be concerned about the abuse of power by that authority, because who is it that wishes or desires that such authority does not exist? On that path, someone may aspire to the non-existence of the militia, to the non-existence of the police, to the non-existence of State power, and even to the non-existence of the State itself. And if someone is so keen in the non-existence of any state authority, then he should not worry and just be patient, because the day will come when no state will exist either. (Applause.)

There must be a council that orients, encourages, develops, and works to create the best possible conditions for the work of artists and intellectuals. And who is the first guardian of the interests of artists and intellectuals, if not that very Council? Who is it entity that proposes all possible laws and suggests measures to improve these conditions, if not the National Council for Culture? Who is proposing a National Printing Law remediate the deficiencies that have been mentioned here? Who is proposing the creation of an Institute of Ethnology and Folklore, if not the National Council itself? Who is calling for existence of the necessary budget and foreign currency to bring in books, which have not come into the country for many months, and to acquire the materials for the painters and visual artists to work? Who worries about the economic problems, that is, the material conditions of artists? Which entity is the one that worries about the current needs of writers and artists? Who defends within the Government the budgets, the buildings, and projects which are precisely meant to improve the conditions and circumstances in which you would work? It is precisely the National Council for Culture.

Why should anyone look upon that Council with reservations? Why should anyone look upon that authority as a supposed authority that is going to do the opposite to limiting our conditions, and suffocate our creative spirit? It could be conceived that those who do not have any problems whatsoever may worry about that authority. But in reality, those who can appreciate the need of all the actions and all the work the council has to do would not look upon it with reservations. Besides, because the council also has an obligation to the people and has an obligation to the Revolution and the Revolutionary Government which is to fulfill the objectives for which it was created and is as interested in its work success, as is each and every artist is interested in his own

I do not know if I have forgotten any of the fundamental problems that have been mentioned here. The issue of the movie has been discussed in length here. I have not seen the film, I want to see the movie (Laughter) I am curious to see the film. Was the film mistreated? Actually, I believe that no other movie has received so many honors and no other movie has been discussed so much. (Laughter)

Even though we have not seen the film we have heard the opinions from a number of comrades who have seen it, among them, the opinion of the comrade President, the opinion of various comrades from the National Council for Culture. Needless to say that these are views and opinions that to which we hold the utmost respect. However, there is something undisputable, and that is the right sanctioned by the law to exercise the functions for which in this case performed the Institute of Cinema or the reviewing committee. Is the right of the government by any chance the being disputed? Does the government have the right to exercise this function or not? For us in this case the main function is, first, is whether that right existed or not on the part of the government. Procedural matters may be discussed, as it was the case, whether it was not amicable, if an amicable approach could have been better. Even the fairness or unfairness of the decision might be discussed. But there is something that I believe no one can dispute and it is the right of the Government to exercise that function because if we challenge that right then it means that the Government does not have the right to review the films that are going to be screened for the people. And I believe it is a right that cannot be disputed.

Threes is besides smothering that we all understand perfectly well; And that is that among manifestations of an intellectual or artistic nature, there are some that are more important in regards to the people’s education or its ideological formation as compared to other manifestations of the arts. And I do not think there is anyone who can dispute the fact that one of the fundamental and extremely important media are cinema, and television.

Actually can, in the midst of a Revolution, the right of the Government to regulate, review and oversee the films that are shown to the people be discussed? Is what is been disputed? Can the right of the Revolutionary Government to oversee those media that exert so much influence on the people be considered a limitation or a prohibitive formula? If we challenge the right of the Revolutionary Government, two would be incurring in a matter of principle. Because denying that authority to the Government would be denying the Government its role and responsibility, especially in the midst of a revolutionary struggle, while leading the people, and leading the Revolution.

And at times is seems the rights of the government are questioned. In reality, if that right of the government is challenged we are of the opinion that the government indeed has that right. And if it has that right, it can make use of that right, and can do so wrongly. This does not mean that the government is infallible. The Government acting in the use of a right or a function vested upon it does not have to be necessarily infallible.

Now. Who has so many reservations with respect to the government? Who is that person who harbors so many doubts? Who is so suspicious about the Revolutionary Government and who distrust the Revolutionary Government so much that even when thinking that a decision is wrong he thinks it constitutes a danger and a motive of terror by feeling that the government will always be wrong? I am not saying by any means that the government is mistaken in his decision, what I am saying that the government acted in use of a right. I try to place myself in the shoes of those who worked in that movie, I try to put myself in the state of mind of those who made that movie and I even try to understand their sorrow, their anger, their pain about the movie no being screened.

Anyone can understand this perfectly. But it must be understood that the actions taken were in use of a right and that it was a judgement that had the support of competent comrades, of comrades with responsibilities in the government and that there is no founded right to distrust the spirit of justice and equity of the men of the Revolutionary Government; because the Revolutionary Government has not given any reason for anyone to question its spirit of justice and equality.

We cannot think that we are perfect. We cannot even think that we are not passionate. Can anyone say that certain comrades of the Government are passionate or not, and those who claim such things. Can they really that they are free of passion either? Can passionate attitudes be attributed to certain comrades while ignoring that those very opinions might be tainted by attitudes of a personal nature? Here we could say that he who believe himself to be perfect or is alien to passions cast the first stone.

I believe there is being personalism and passion in the discussion. Have there been personalism and passion or not? Is it that everyone here came striped of passion and personalism? Is it that absolutely all have come here stripped also of group spirit? Is it that there have not been different currents and trends in this debate? This is undeniable. If a six-year-old child had been seated here, he would have also noticed the different currents and points of view and the diversity of passions that were argued in this meeting.

The comrades have said many things. They have said interesting things and others have made brilliant statements. Everyone has been very erudite. (Laughter) Above all, there has been a reality; that of the discussion and the freedom with which all have expressed and defended their views in the context of this extensive meeting, which has been broader day after day. This is meeting that we consider positive, a meeting where we can clear a series of doubts and concerns.

Were there quarrels? Who could doubt it? (Laughter) were there wars and squabbles among writers and artists here? Who could doubt it? (Laughter) Were there any criticisms and super-criticisms? Who could doubt it? In addition, have some comrades tested their weapons and proved their weapons at the expense of other comrades? Who could doubt it?

And those who have been “wounded” have spoken and have expressed their heart-felt complaint against what they have considered unfair attacks. Fortunately, it is been the wounded who have passed through here not the dead (Laughter) comrades which are still ailing of the inflicted wounds (Laughter) And some of them showed as an evident injustice they being attacked with big caliber cannons without even being able to fire back.

Were there any harsh criticism? Who could doubt it? And in a way, that problem was brought to this meeting. Moreover, we cannot pretend to solve these problems with a few words. Nevertheless, I believe that among the things discussed here, one of the more correct statements is that critique must be constructive, must be positive and should not be destructive. That is clear even for those of us who understand nothing about critique. No wonder the word criticism has become synonymous of attack when it does not mean that at all, it does not have to mean that. But when someone is told; “Mr. So-and-so criticized you,” and right away becomes angry before asking what was said. (Laughter) That is, that he was destroyed. That is, there must be a principle in critique; criticism must be constructive.

Actually. If someone had explained to, people who have been a little bit distant from these problems or struggles, from these tests and proves of weapons. If someone had explained the case of some comrades who have come to the brink of unsurmountable depression, it is possible that we would have sympathized with the victims, because we have the tendency of sympathizing with the victims.

Honestly, we desire nothing more than contributing to the understanding and the unity of all. And we have tried to avoid words that might hurt someone or discourage someone. . But there is an undeniable fact; that these cases of struggles and controversies may occur and that there is not equality in terms of conditions for everyone.

From the Revolution’s point of view, it cannot be fair. The Revolution cannot give weapons to some to fight against others; the Revolution should not give weapons to some to fight against others. We believe that writers and artists must all have opportunities to express themselves. We believe that writers and artists, through their association, must have a broad cultural magazine, and all should have access to it.

Don’t you believe this is fair?

The Revolution can provide these resources, but not in the hands of a group. The Revolution can and must allocate these resources in such a way that all writers and artists can use them extensively.

You will soon launch the Association of Artists; you are going to organize a congress. I do not know whether you will discuss or not the matters stated by comrade Walterio on Arango y Parreño and about Saco (Laughter) but we know that you are going to meet. And one of the things we are proposing is that the Association of Artists is one where everyone should go with a truly constructive spirit. Because if anyone believes that he can be put aside, if someone think there is an intention of suffocating him, we can assure that that person is wrong. This is why the congress must be held with a truly constructive spirit and it can be indeed be held. We believe you are capable of holding that congress in that spirit. A strong organization of artists and writers should be organized-- and it was about time already- that you contribute in an organized manner and enthusiastically to the tasks, you are to undertake in the Revolution. The organization comprehensibly for all artists and writers.

We believe that this would be a formula so that when we meet again—and we believe we should meet again (Applause). At east for us, we should not voluntarily renounce to the pleasure and usefulness of these meetings, which has contributed to raise awareness about these problems among us. We must meet again. What does it mean? Well we must continue discussing these problems. That is, there is already something that will peace of mind to all, and knows the interest this government has about these problems and at the same time opportunity to discuss these matters in an extensive meeting.

It seems to us that this must be a cause of satisfaction for writers and artists. With it, we will continue receiving information and acquiring better knowledge on our part.

The National Council for Culture must also have another communications agency. I believe that this is placing things right. And this cannot be called culture on constrains or suffocation of the creative spirit. Who can say, being a fully functioning human being operating with all five senses and being a true artist that he is concerned about the so-called suffocation of the creative spirit? The Revolution want the artists to make their best efforts in favor of the people, it wants them to put the best interest and effort in the work of the Revolution. And we believe it is a just aspiration of the Revolution.

Does it mean that we are going to tell people here what to write? No. Let everyone write whatever they wish. And if what he writes is not good, that is up to him; if what he paints, is not good; that is his problem. We do not prohibit anyone to write about the topic of his choosing. To the contrary, let everyone express himself the way he considers pertinent and freely express the topic they wish to address. We appreciate the artist’s relation always from the revolutionary perspective. That is also a right of the Revolutionary Government, which is as a respectable a right as is everyone's right to express himself or herself.

There are a number of measures being taken, some of which we have pointed out.

For those who are worried about the problem of the National Printing House; yes, indeed the National Printing House, a recently established office, which was born under very difficult circumstances, because it started operating in the premises of a newspaper that had to close in just e few days. We were all there when that newspaper became the first workshop of the National Printing House with all its workers and writers. Moreover, the printing house has undertaken the task of printing various materials of a military nature. We know there are deficiencies, which will be corrected, and to that end, a law to incorporate different publishers under the umbrella of the National Printing House has been passed so that the complaints expressed here do not occur again.

In addition, the relevant accords are being passed or will be approved for the purpose of acquiring books, work supplies, that is, to resolve all these problems that writers and artists are concern about and on which the National Council of Culture has insisted a great deal because you know that there are different departments and institutions in the State and each of them demands and aspires to have all the resources necessary to fulfill its functions fully.

We would like to highlight aspects where progress has already been made and should be considered as a motive for encouragement for all of us. That includes the success of the rebuilt and fully staffed symphonic orchestra. The orchestra has not only reached high standards from the artistic perspective but also in its revolutionary spirit because 50 members of the symphonic orchestra are now militiamen. The Cuban ballet has also been reestablished and just finished an international tour where they received the admiration and recognition of the countries where they performed. The modern dance troop is right now successful as well and has been greatly appraised in Europe. For its part, the National Library is also developing a cultural policy in favor of culture, in favor of the matters, which aroused your concern in order to spark in the people the interest for music, for painting. It has established a painting department for the purpose of taking those works to the people, a music department and one devoted to youth and children. A while before coming to this hall we were visiting the children’s department at the National Library. We saw a number of children already associated to the work being carried out there and the progress made by the National Library, which also constitutes a reason so that the government can allocate the necessary resources to carry out its work. The National Printing House is already a victory of the Revolution, which will greatly contribute to the people’s education.

The Institute of Cinema is also a reality. Especially during this first stage, the necessary investments have been made to fit it with the necessary material equipment for its work. The Revolution has established the bases of the movie industry, which constitutes a great effort if one considers the fact that Cuba is not an industrialized country, which means a great deal of sacrifice to acquire this equipment. Moreover, if there are not more facilities in the field of cinema, a restrictive policy involved in not having more facilities, but the current scarceness of economic resources, which would allow the existence of amateur cinematographers’ movement to foster the development of all cinematic talents which will be materialized when those resources are available. The policy in the Institute of Cinema will be one of discussion and fraternal competition among different teams.

The task of the Institute of Cinema cannot be judged yet. Not enough time has yet passed so they can have a body of work to be judged, but they have worked and we know about a number of documentaries produced by the institute, which have contributed extensively to raise awareness about the work of the Revolution abroad.

But what is important to highlight is that the foundations for the cinema industry have already been laid. Publicity work has also been carried out, including cultural extension conferences in various organizations, which is nothing compared to the can be done and what the Revolution aspires to achieve.

There are a number of questions that concern the writers and artists yet to solve, there are problems of a material nature, and that is, there are economic problems. These are not the same conditions as they were before. The privileged sector that acquired the artists’ works, paying next to nothing by the way, and which, took more than one artist to destitution and oblivion, exists no more. These problems will be addressed and resolved by the Revolutionary Government and the National Council of Culture must be concerned with them. That also applies to the issue with the artists that cannot produce anymore and were completely forsaken, to secure for the artists not just the proper material conditions but also the guarantee that they won’t have to worry when the cant work anymore.

In a way, the reorganization of the Copyright Institute has enabled a number of authors who were miserably exploited and whose rights were infringed now have earnings which have enabled them to escape the situation of extreme poverty where they barely survived.

These are steps taken by the Revolution, which are just that, steps that precede others to create better conditions.

There is also an idea of arranging a place for artists and writers to rest and work at the same time.

On an occasion, when we were in a sort of peregrination around the national territory; we got the idea of building a settlement in a very beautiful location in the Isle of Pines. A village in the middle of the pine forest- at the time we were thinking of instituting some kind of award for the best progressive writers and artists of the world – as a prize and above all as an homage to those writers and artists. It is a project that did not come to fruition even though it can be resurrected to build a compound or a village; a heaven of peace, an invitation to rest, and an invitation to write. (Applause) And I believe that it is worth that the artists, architects among them, start drawing and sketching an ideal place for rest for a writer or an artist, and let us see if they can agree on that. (Laughter).

The Revolutionary Government is wiling on its part to allocate the resources somewhere in the budget, now that everything is being planned. And will planning be a limitation to our creative spirit, the creative spirit of revolutionaries? Because in a sense you should not forget that we, somehow revolutionaries ad libitum, find ourselves now in face of the reality of planning; and that also poses a problem to us since up until now we have been creative spirits of revolutionary initiatives and of revolutionary investments as well, all this need to be planned. Do not think that we are fee from problems and that we could protest against that from our point of view.

That is, that we already know what will be done next year, and the year after that and the next. Who will argue against a planned economy? But as part of that planning there is room to build a place of respite for writers and artists and the Revolution would be truly pleased if it could count the building of such place as one of its realizations among the other works it has undertaken. We have been concerned here with the current situation of writers and artists. And we, who don’t have any complaints against you, have however devoted a little bit of time to think about the future artists and writers and we think about what it would be like when artist and writes meet again-- as must meet again, men from the government of the future , in five, ten years’ time-- it does not mean it has to be actually us-- with writers and artist when culture reaches the extraordinary development we aspire to, with the writers and artists of the future, when the first fruits are born from the academies and schools that exist today.

Way before these matters were posed the Revolutionary Government was already concerned with bringing culture to the people.

We have always been very optimistic. I believe one can only be revolutionary if one is optimistic, because the difficulties that a Revolution is posed to overcome are very serious. And one must be optimistic! A pessimistic person will never be a revolutionary.

There were various State entities, which were relevant to the first stage of the Revolution. The Revolution has had its stages. The Revolution had a stage in which a series of initiatives sprung from various organizations. Even the National Institute for the Agrarian Reform (INRA Spanish languish acronym) was carrying out cultural extension activities, we even clashed a couple of times with the National Theater, because they were doing a given work and all of sudden we were doing some other work on our own. Now everything is being placed under an organization´s umbrella.

Moreover, our plans with respect to the farmers at the cooperatives and farms, we came up with the idea of taking culture to the countryside, to the farmers, to the cooperatives. How? Well bringing in farmers to become music, dance and theater instructors. Only the optimistic can launch initiatives of this nature.

Well. How to instill in the farmers the love for theatre, for example? Where were the instructors? Where could we get them from to send them, let us say, to 300 people´s farms and 600 cooperatives? Which is something I believe you all agree it is something positive and more so to start finding talents among the people and turn the people into authors and creators because in truth, the people is the great creator.

We must not forget that, and we must not forget the thousands upon thousands of talents, which must have been lost in our countryside and in our cities for lack of conditions and opportunities to be developed. They are as if those undiscovered geniuses, dormant genius’s waiting-- I would not pretend to be a connoisseur-- to be awaken by a silk hand to train them.

In our countryside, and we are all sure about that- unless we assume we are the most intelligent people ever been born in this country and I will begin by saying that I do not presume any such thing. I have many times mentioned as an example the fact that where I was born, out of one thousand children I was the only one to pursue a university degree, poorly studied by the way, however I could not escape attending religious schools with priests and so on and so forth. (Laughter)

And I do not want to throw down an anathema against anyone here. But I do say I have the same right as someone else had to say---- someone came here and also said what he wanted to say, he to complain what he wanted to say--- “I have the right to complain.”

Someone spoke of having being shaped by bourgeois society. I can say that I was shaped by something even worse. That I was shaped by the worst of the reaction, and that a great part of the years of my life were lost in obscurantism, in superstition, and deceit, in a time when one was not taught to think but was forced to believe.

I believe that when there is an attempt to curtail the ability to think and reason they turn the human being into a domesticated animal (Applause) I am not warning against men’s religious feelings. We respect those feelings; we respect men’s right to the freedom of belief and the freedom of worship. Tis does not mean that my right was respected; I did not have any freedom of belief or freedom of worship and they tied to domesticate me for 12 years. (Laughter).

It is only natural that I think with some regret of the years that I could have employed; at the time when youth has the largest dose of interest and curiosity for things, of having employed those years in studding systematically, and that I had been allowed to acquire this culture that Cuban children will extensively have the opportunity to possess.

That is, despite all that, I was the only one among a thousand to obtain a university degree and I had to go through a grinding mill where out of sheer luck one was not mentally destroyed for good. So, the only one in a thousand had to go through all that. Why so? Ah. That is because I was the only one among a thousand who´s folks could pay a private school to study in the countryside.

Now. Am I supposed to believe that I was the fittest and the smartest among a thousand because of that? I believe we are a product of selection but not so much natural as it was social. I was socially selected to attend the university, and socially I am talking here now because of a social selection, not natural selection.

Social selection left in abject ignorance who knows how many tens of thousands of youth, who were superior to all of us, that is the truth. And he who believes himself an artist must think that there are probably other would-have-been artists who were much better than him somewhere out there--- I just hope Guillen does not get mad at me because of what I am saying (Laughter). We would be fooling ourselves if we did not admit that. We are privileged in the midst of all this because we were not born in poverty. And we not privileged for that alone.

Anyway, back to what I was saying-- and I can later tell you in what other aspects we are privileged-- the issue is that it demonstrates how intelligences has been lost simply because of lack of opportunity. We are going to take that opportunity to all those intelligences; we are going to create the conditions that will allow all artistic, literary or scientific talent, or talent of any kind to be develop.

And think about the imprint of a Revolution, which allows such a thing. A Revolution that as of right now, from the next school year on, after all the people have learn how to read and write, with schools everywhere in Cuba, with follow-up campaigns and with the training of instructors to know and discover all sorts of qualities. That is just the beginning. The fact is that those instructors working in the countryside will know which child has a talent and which child must be granted a scholarship at the National School of the Arts but in the meantime, they will spark an appreciation for the arts and a liking for culture among adults

And some experiments, which have been conducted, prove the peasant´s and the men of the people´s ability to assimilate artistic matters, to assimilate culture, and to put himself immediately to producing. There are comrades who have been working in various cooperatives and have made it possible for these cooperatives to have their own theatre group. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated recently with performances in different locations around the country and the artistic work done by men and women of the people. Well now, think what it would mean when we have a theatre instructor, a music instructor, a dance instructor in every people´s farm

In just two years’ time, we will send one thousand instructors—more than a thousand – for theater, dance and music.

The schools are been organized, they are already functioning and now imagine when we have one thousand dance troops, music ensembles, theatre groups across the entire island, in the countryside – we are not talking about the cities where it is a little bit easier-- imagine what it will mean in terms of cultural extension.

Because some people have said here that, it is necessary to raise the people´s cultural level. But how? The Revolutionary Government has taken this matter to heart, and the Revolutionary Government is creating the conditions so that a few years from now the people´s culture and the ability to appreciate culture will have and extraordinary growth.

We have chosen these three fields, but others can be selected and we keep working to develop culture in all its aspects.

This school is already in working and the comrades who work at the school are satisfied with the progress made by this group of future instructors. In addition, construction works on the National Academy of Art has already began, not to mention the National Academy of Handcrafts. By the way, Cuba will soon have the most beautiful academy of arts in the world. Why?

Because that academy is located in the most beautiful residential district in the world, where the most spendthrift bourgeoisie of the world used to live. And there in the best district of the most ostentatious and most spendthrift bourgeoisie – and by the way-- the most uncultured. (Laughter and Applause) Because there was indeed a bar in each and every one of those houses, but they did not worry about anything else. - If not for a few exceptions- they were not concerned at all about cultural issues despite living in an incredibly extravagant manner. And it is worth taking a tour though the district to see how these people lived. However, they did not know what an extraordinary academy of arts they were building (Laughter)

And that is what will remain of what they did, because the students will live in the homes where the millionaires resided, they will not live secluded they will live like if those were their homes and them will attend class at the Academy. The Academy will be located in the middle of Country Club, where a group of architects-artists have designed the work of art --- are they here? --- I apologize – (Laughter) they have designed the structures that are going to be built, they have started already and are committed to finishing the works by December we already have 300 000 feet of mahogany and other precious timbers for the furniture. It is in the middle of a golf course, a fairy-tale natural location and there is where the National Academy of the Arts will be built. It will include 60 residences surrounding it, a social club on one side which includes diners, halls, a swimming pool and a visitors’ area where the foreign professors who come to help us will we find accommodation and able to house 3 000 children, that is, 3 000 children in a scholarship program and we expect it enters into operation by the next school year. The National Academy for Handcraft Arts will open with as many residences and will be located in another golf course and with a similar constructive design. That is, this will be the National type academies-- it does not mean in any way these will be the only schools to be opened-- where youth who show a greater capacity will study and their families will not need to pay anything at all for their education and the students will enjoy ideal conditions to develop.

Anyone would want to be a young now, to be able to enroll in one of these academies. Isn't that true? (Exclamations of “Sure!”)

Persons spoke here about painters who had a cup of coffee with milt, and who spent fifteen days living out of coffee and milk alone. Now asses how different conditions will be and then you will tell us if the creative spirit will find better conditions or not to develop; education, housing, food, general culture because they will go there from the age of eight and will receive general cultural education together with the artistic formation.

Don’t we wish that these children to grow in all aspects of life fully while studying in that those schools?

These are more than ideas or dreams; they are already realities of the Revolution. The instructors that are being trained, the national schools than are being prepared, and the schools for amateur’s artists, which will also be established.

This is why the Revolution is so important. Because, how could we do this without the Revolution? Let us imagine that we are afraid that our creative spirit will wither, “crushed by the despotic hands of the Stalinist Revolution," (Laughter)

Gentlemen, isn’t it worth it to think of the future­? Are we going to think that our flowers will wither when we are planting flowers everywhere, when we are forging these spirits of the future? And who would not change the present-- who would not change his own future – for that future we are building? (Applause) Who would not sacrifice his own future for that future and who with artistic sensibility would not be willing, just like the combatant who dies in battle, knowing he is dying, that physically he will cease to exist so that the blood he sheds will lay the path to victory for his fellow countrymen and his people.

Think about the combatant who dies fighting: he sacrifices everything he has. He sacrifices his life, he sacrifices his family, he sacrifices his wife, and he sacrifices his children. And for what? So that we can do all these things. And who is it that has human sensitivity and artistic sensitivity and is not willing to make all sacrifices necessary so that these noble goals can be attained?

Nevertheless, the Revolution does not ask sacrifices of the creative genius. On the contrary, the Revolution says; place that creative spirit at the service of this endeavor without the fear of having your work will be truncated. But if one day you believe that your work will be truncated, then you should say: it is worth that my work is truncated if I can build a work like the one we have ahead of us. (Prolonged applause)

On the contrary. We ask the artist to develop his creative effort to the highest level possible. We want to create those conditions for the artists and intellectuals to excel. Because if we intend to create these conditions for the future, how would it be possible not to want them for the artists and intellectuals of the present.

We are asking to develop in favor of culture precisely, in favor of art, at the service of the Revolution because the Revolution means precisely that, more culture and more art. We ask you to contribute your grain of sand into this endeavor, which in the end will be an undertaking of this generation.

The next generation will be better than we are, but we shall be the ones who have made that better generation possible. We shall be the ones who forge that future generation. We, this generation, regardless of age, it is not a matter of age at all. Why do we have to argue about such a delicate matter? (Laughter)

In this endeavor, there is room for everyone. Because this is an undertaking of all of us: of the bearded and the beardless; those with a head of hair and those who have no hair at all or those who have white hair. This is the endeavor of all of us.

We are going to wage a war against ignorance. We are going to wage a battle against ignorance. We are going to spark an irreconcilable guerrilla war against ignorance and we are going to fight it and test our weapons.

Maybe someone does not want to participate. Well, is there a greater punishment than depriving oneself of the satisfaction of participating is this undertaking?

We said we were privileged. Ah!, because we learned how to read and write, and we attended a school, a high school, the University or at least we acquired the rudiments of instruction sufficient to be able to do something.

And can't we call ourselves privileged for living in the midst of a revolution? Were not we devoted with extraordinary interest to reading about revolutions? Who is it that has not read with true hunger for knowledge the stories about the French Revolution or the history of Russian Revolution? Who has not dreamed at least once in his life of having been a personal witness of those revolutions?

I, for example, when reading about the war of independence, regretted no having been born at that time and I was sorry for not being one of the fighters in the war of independence and not being part of that history. Because we have all read the chronicles of the war and the struggle for independence with true passion. And we envied the intellectuals, the artists, the warriors, the fighters, the leaders of that time.

We have however had the privilege of living and being witness to an authentic revolution, a revolution which force is now growing outside our country´s borders, which political and moral influence has shaken imperialism and has make it tremble in this continent. (Applause) Where the Cuban Revolution becomes the most important event of the century for Latin America, in the most important event after the wars of independence that took place in the 19th century, a true era of redemption for humankind.

Because what were those wars for independence but the replacement of colonial rule by that of the oligarchic and exploiting classes in all those countries? We have now the experience of being part of a historic event. It can be said that the second greatest event of the last three centuries in Latin America of which the Cubans have been protagonists. And the more we work, the more the Revolution will be seen like an indistinguishable flame and more will it be called to play a transcendental and historic role.

You writers and artists have had the privilege of being eyewitnesses of this Revolution. When a revolution is such an important event in human history it is worth living a revolution even if it is just to bear witness of it. That is also a privilege, which for those who are not able of understanding these matters, those who let themselves being cheated, those who allow others confuse them, those who are scatter-brained by deceit, well they renounce the Revolution

What can be said about those who have renounced it, and what to think of them except with pity? Pity for those who abandon their country in the midst of the revolutionary fervor to plunge into the entrails of the imperialist monster where they cannot have life whatsoever, neither any expression of the spirit?

And they have abandoned the Revolution to go there. They have chosen to be fugitives and defectors of their homeland instead of being at least spectators.

And you have the opportunity to be more than spectators, to be actors of this Revolution, to write about it to express yourselves about it.

What will the generations to come demand of you? You might be able to create magnificent artistic works from the technical perspective. But if a man from the future generation is told that a writer, and intellectual --- that is, a man from one hundred years ahead--- of this time lived during the Revolution indifferent to it and did not expressed what the revolution was, and was not part of the Revolution, is something that no one will find easy to comprehend, more so when in the years to come there will be so many committed to painting the Revolution, wanting to write about the Revolution and wanting to express themselves about the Revolution collecting data and gathering information to know what occurred, how it was like, how people lived.

A few days ago, we had the experience of coming across a one-hundred-and- six-year-old woman who had just learned how to read and write and we asked her to write a book. She had been a slave and we wanted to know how a slave saw the world under those circumstances. We wanted to know what her first impressions in life were, know about her masters and her fellow slaves.

I believe she can write something so interesting that none of us would be able to write. It is possible that within a year, she shall be fully literate and will be able to write a book at the age of one hundred and six-- those are the things the Revolutions make possible--- and then she can become a writer and we will have to bring her here to the next meeting. (Laughter and applause) and then Walterio will have to admit her as one of nation´s icons of the 20th century. (Laughter and applause).

Who could write better than she could about what the slave saw, and who could write better than you could about the present? And how many people will start to write in the future without the experience of living it, from a distance, collecting writings.

And let us not rush to judge our undertaking, since will have judges in abundance. And what is to be feared is not that supposed authoritarian judge, a henchman of culture, <an imaginary figure, which has been sketched here. You shall fear judges ever more formidable. Fear the judges of posterity, fear the future generations that, will in the end, will have the final say. (Ovation)

Verbatim versions department.