(本館)  (トップ) (分館)

バートランド・ラッセル 自伝 - バートランド・ラッセル事件(松下彰良 訳)- The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, v.2

前ページ 次ページ v.2,chap.6 目次 Contents (総目次)

第2巻第6章 アメリカ(1938~1944)

* 右写真2枚め / 右写真3枚め

 聖公会のある司教がそそのかされて私の就任に反対の抗議をした。そうして(それを受け),司祭たち(牧師たち)は私がニューヨーク市の犯罪の発生に対して責任があると言って,警察に説法した。警察官はほぼ全員がアイルランド系のカトリック信者であった。私とはまったく関係のない学科に在学中の娘をもっているある女性が -私が市立大学の教授に就任することは娘の徳育上危険だと説得されて,訴訟を起こした。これは,私に対する訴訟ではなく,ニューヨーク市当局を相手どってなされたものであった(ラッセル注:この訴訟に関する情報は,1941年,ホーレース・M・カレン編,ヴァイキング・プレス版の『バートランド・ラッセル事件』の中に見られる。さらにまた,1957年,ポール・エドワード編,アレン・アンド・アンウィン社版の『わたくしは何故クリスチャンでないか』の付録の中に見られる) 私はこの訴訟について,当事者(の一人)になれるように努力したが,'私には関係ない'と言われた。市当局は,名目上は被告であったが,原告の女性が訴訟に勝つことを熱望していたと同程度に,敗訴したいと望んでいた。原告(起訴)側の弁護士は,私の著書(注:Marriage and Morals, 1930/邦訳書『ラッセル結婚論』)を「好色,扇情的,多淫,性欲を促す,色情狂,催淫,不敬,狭量,虚偽,道徳性喪失」の書であると断言した。この訴訟の裁判官はアイルランド人であり,ついに,罵言をあびせながら,私に不利な判決を下した。私は控訴を希望したが,ニューヨーク市当局は控訴することを拒絶した。私を攻撃する目的で言われたことのなかには,全く滑稽千万なものもいくつかあった。たとえば,私は幼児が自慰行為をしてもそれを罰すべきではないなどと言うような不道徳な人間である,とされた。 

v.2,chap.6: America

Towards the end of the academic year 1939-1940, I was invited to become a professor at the College of the City of New York. The matter appeared to be settled, and I wrote to the President of the University of California to resign my post there. Half an hour after he received my letter, I learned that the appointment in New York was not definitive and I called upon the President to withdraw my resignation, but he told me it was too late. Earnest Christian taxpayers had been protesting against having to contribute to the salary of an infidel, and the President was glad to be quit of me.
The College of the City of New York was an institution run by the City Government. Those who attended it were practically all Catholics or Jews; but to the indignation of the former, practically all the scholarships went to the latter. The Government of New York City was virtually a satellite of the Vatican, but the professors at the City College strove ardently to keep up some semblance of academic freedom. It was no doubt in pursuit of this aim that they had recommended me. An Anglican bishop was incited to protest against me, and priests lectured the police, who were practically all Irish Catholics, on my responsibility for the local criminals. A lady, whose daughter attended some section of the City College with which I should never be brought in contact, was induced to bring a suit, saying that my presence in that institution would be dangerous to her daughter's virtue. This was not a suit against me, but against the Municipality of New York.(Information about this suit will be found in The Bertrand Russell Case, ed. by John Dewey and Horace M. Kallen, Viking Press, 1941; and also in the Appendix to Why I am not a Christian, ed. by Paul Edwards, George Allen & Unwin, 1957) I endeavoured to be made a party to the suit, but was told that I was not concerned. Although the Municipality was nominally the defendant, it was as anxious to lose the suit as the good lady was to win it. The lawyer for the prosecution pronounced my works 'lecherous, libidinous, lustful, venerous, erotomaniac, aphrodisiac, irreverent, narrow-minded, untruthful, and bereft of moral fiber.' The suit came before an Irishman who decided against me at length and with vituperation. I wished for an appeal, but the Municipality of New York refused to appeal. Some of the things said against me were quite fantastic. For example, I was thought wicked for saying that very young infants should not be punished for masturbation.