because of that it has the greatest effect upon us. For, says Oehler, you have to have gone to elementary school, to secondary school, and to the university with a man like Hollensteiner, as Karrer did, to know what he is. A person like me doesn’t know. We comment, with really terrifying helplessness, upon a matter or a case or simply just a misfortune or just simply Hollensteiner’s misfortune. I talked to Karrer about this at precisely the place where we are now standing, a few hours after we had attended Hollensteiner’s funeral. Just in Döblingen cemetery itself, says Oehler, where we buried Hollensteiner and, in the nature of things, buried him in the simplest way. He wanted to have a very simple funeral, says Oehler, he had once indicated to Karrer, actually very early on when he was only twenty-one, he had indicated that he wanted a very simple funeral and in Döblingen cemetery. Just in Döblingen cemetery itself, says Oehler, there are so many extraordinary people buried, all of whom were destroyed by the state, who perished as a result of the brutality of the bureaucracy and the stupidity of the masses. We comment upon a thing, a case, or simply a misfortune and wonder how this misfortune could have arisen. How was this misfortune possible? We deliberately avoid talking about a so-called human tragedy. We have a single individual in front of us, and we have to tell ourselves that this individual has perished at the hands of the state and, vice versa, that the state has perished at the hands of this individual. It is not easy to say that it’s a question of a misfortune, says Oehler, of this individual’s misfortune, or the state’s misfortune. It makes no sense to tell ourselves, now, that Hollensteiner could be in Göttingen (or Marburg) now, because Hollensteiner is not in Göttingen and is not in Marburg. Hollensteiner no longer exists. We buried Hollensteiner in Döblingen cemetery. As far as Hollensteiner is concerned we are left behind with our absolute helplessness (of thought). What we do is to exhaust ourselves meditating about insoluble facts, among which we do not understand the process of thought, though we call it thought, says Oehler. We become aware once more of our unease when we occupy ourselves with Hollensteiner, with Hollensteiner’s suicide and with Karrer’s madness, which I think is directly connected to Hollensteiner’s suicide. We even misuse a subject like that of Hollensteiner in relation to Karrer, to bring ourselves satisfaction. A strange ruthlessness, which is not recognizable as ruthlessness, dominates a man like Hollensteiner, says Oehler, and we are inevitably captivated by this ruthlessness if we recognize that it is an incredibly shrewd emotional state, which we could also call a state of mind. Anyone who knew Hollensteiner had to ask himself now and again where Hollensteiner’s way of acting would lead. Today we can see quite clearly where Hollensteiner’s way of acting has led. Hollensteiner and Karrer together represent the two most unusual people I have known, says Oehler. There is no doubt that the fact that Hollensteiner hanged himself in his institute is demonstrative in character, says Oehler. The shock of Hollensteiner’s suicide was, however, like all shocks about suicides, very very short-lived. Once the suicide is buried, his suicide and he himself are forgotten. No one thinks about it any more and the shock turns out to be hypocritical. Between Hollensteiner’s suicide and Hollensteiner’s funeral a lot was said about saving the Institute of Chemistry, says Oehler, people saying that the funds that had been denied to Hollensteiner would be placed at the disposal of his successor, as if there were one! cries Oehler, the newspapers carried reports that the ministry would undertake a so-called extensive redevelopment of Hollensteiner’s institute, at the funeral, people were even talking about the state’s making good what it had until then neglected in the Institute for Chemistry, but today, a few weeks later, says Oehler, that’s all as good as forgotten. Hollensteiner demonstrates by hanging himself in his own institute the serious plight of the whole domestic scientific community, says Oehler, and the world, and thus the people around Hollensteiner, feigns shock and goes to Hollensteiner’s funeral, and the moment Hollensteiner is buried they forget everything connected with Hollensteiner. Today nobody talks about Hollensteiner any more and nobody talks about his Institute of Chemistry, and nobody thinks of changing the situation that led to Hollensteiner’s suicide. And then someone else commits suicide, says Oehler, and another, and the process is repeated. Slowly but surely all intellectual activity in this country is extinguished, says Oehler. And what we observe in Hollensteiner’s field can be seen in every field, says Oehler. Until now we have always asked ourselves whether a country, a state, can afford to allow its intellectual treasure to deteriorate in such a really shabby way, says Oehler, but nobody asks the question any longer. Karrer spoke about Hollensteiner as a perfect example of a human being who could not be helped because he was extraordinary, unusual. Karrer explained the concept of the eccentric in connection with Hollensteiner with complete clarity, says Oehler. If there had been a less fundamental, a distanced, relationship between him, Karrer, and Hollensteiner, Karrer told Oehler, he, Karrer, would have made Hollensteiner the subject of a paper entitled