遺棄(desertion 配偶者の一方あるいは子供を見捨てること)は,本当のものであれば,もちろん,離婚の根拠(理由)となるはずである。その場合,判決(decree)は,既に事実になっていること,即ち,結婚は終わっていることを法律で認める(法律を適用する)にすぎないからである。けれども,法律的な観点から見ると,遺棄が離婚の根拠になるなら,そのために(離婚したいために)遺棄が利用されること(be resorted to 遺棄に訴えること)になり,その結果,遺棄が離婚の根拠にならない場合よりもずっと多くなる,という具合の悪いこと(awkwardness やっかいさ,扱いにくさ) が生じる。
同じような困難さ(やっかいさ)は,本来(in themselves それ自身)完全に妥当である種々の理由に関しても生じてくる。多くの夫婦は,熱烈に別れることを望んでいるので,法的に許されるほとんどいかなる便法(expedient 手段)にも訴えようとする。以前,英国でそうであったように,男性は,離婚するためには,姦淫(不義密通)はもちろんのこと(as well as),虐待の罪を犯さなければならなかったが,そのような時に,虐待の証拠を用意するため,夫が妻と打ちあわせて(arrange with his wife 妻と示し合わせて)妻を召使い(使用人)の前でなぐることもよく起こった。熱烈に別れることを望んでいる二人に,法律の圧力でむりやりお互いのつき合いを耐えさせることが望ましいことかどうかは,別問題である。しかし,離婚の根拠としてどんなことが認められたとしても,それは,最大限に拡大解釈されるものであり,世の中にはわざとそうした根拠(理由)を利用できるような具合に振る舞う人が多いということは,まったく公平に認めなければならない。
けれども,法律上の難点(困難)は無視して,実際に結婚生活を維持することが望ましくない事情の探求を続けよう。
Chapter XVI: Divorce, n.8
Desertion, when it is genuine, should, of course, be a ground for divorce, for in that case the decree merely recognizes in law what is already the fact, namely that the marriage is at an end. From a legal point of view, however, there is the awkwardness that desertion, if it is a ground for divorce, will be resorted to for that reason, and will be therefore far more frequent than it would be if it were not such a ground. The same kind of difficulty arises in regard to various causes which are in themselves perfectly valid. Many married couples have such a passionate desire to part that they will resort to almost any expedient allowed by the law. When, as was the case in England formerly, a man had to be guilty of cruelty as well as adultery in order to be divorced, it not infrequently happened that a husband would arrange with his wife to hit her before the servants, in order that evidence of cruelty might be forthcoming. Whether it is altogether desirable that two people who passionately desire to part should be forced to endure each other’s companionship by the pressure of the law is another question. But we must in all fairness recognize that whatever grounds of divorce are allowed will be stretched to the uttermost, and that many people will purposely behave in such a manner as to make these grounds available. Let us, however, neglecting legal difficulties, continue our inquiry into the circumstances which in fact make the persistence of a marriage undesirable.
出典: Marriage and Morals, 1929.
詳細情報:https://russell-j.com/beginner/MM16-080.HTM
It follows that in any country which refuses divorce for insanity, as England does, the man or woman whose wife or husband becomes insane is placed in an intolerable position, in favour of which there is no argument whatever except theological superstition. And what is true of insanity is true also of venereal disease, habitual crime, and habitual drunkenness. All these are things which destroy a marriage from every point of view. They make companionship impossible, procreation undesirable, and association of the guilty parent with the child a thing to be avoided. In such cases, therefore, divorce can only be opposed on the ground that marriage is a trap by which the unwary are tricked into purification through sorrow.
出典: Marriage and Morals, 1929.
詳細情報:https://russell-j.com/beginner/MM16-070.HTM
The third alternative, namely that of living in “open sin”, is the one which is least harmful, both to the individual and to the community, where it is feasible, but for economic reasons it is impossible in most cases. A doctor or a lawyer who attempted to live in open sin would lose all his patients or clients. A man engaged in any branch of the scholastic profession would lose his post at once.(note: Unless he happens to teach at one of the older universities and to be closely related to a peer who has been a Cabinet Minister.) Even if economic circumstances do not make open sin impossible, most people will be deterred by the social penalties. Men like to belong to clubs, and women like to be respected and called on by other women. To be deprived of these pleasures is apparently considered a great hardship. Consequently open sin is difficult except for the rich, and for artists and writers and others whose profession makes it easy to live in a more or less bohemian society.
出典: Marriage and Morals, 1929.
詳細情報:https://russell-j.com/beginner/MM16-050.HTM
第二の選択肢,即ち,子供を作らずに人目を忍ぶ関係を持つことは,いま考察しているような状況においては,実際に最も普通に行われているものである。これにもまた重大な異議(反対意見)がある。こそこそしたこと(隠れてやること)はすべて望ましくないし,まじめな性関係は子供や共同生活(a common life)がなければ,最上の可能性を発達させることはできない。その上,男性や女性が若くて精力的であるなら,「君たちは,もう子供を生んではいけない」と言うのは,公共の利益にならない。まして,法律が実際に言っていること,即ち,「君たちは,子供の一方の親に精神異常者を選ばないかぎり,もう子供を生んではいけない」と言うのは,なおさら(still less)公共の利益にならない。(注:少し解りにくいが,結婚相手が精神異常になっても法的に離婚を認めず,子供をさらに生むことを禁じず,内密の性関係では子供をつくることを許さなければ、精神が正常な親の方が子供を持ちたいと思えば、精神異常となった連れ合いとの間に子供をもうけるしかなくなる,ということになり,現行の法律はそれを実質的に主張している、ということか?)
Chapter XVI: Divorce, n.5
The second alternative, namely that of having surreptitious childless relations, is the one most commonly adopted in practice, in such a situation as we are considering. To this, also, there are grave objections. Everything surreptitious is undesirable, and sex relations which are serious cannot develop their best possibilities without children and a common life. Moreover, if a man or woman is young and vigorous, it is not in the public interest to say: “You shall have no more children.” Still less is it to the public interest to say what the law does in fact say, namely: “You shall have no more children unless you choose a lunatic for their other parent.”
出典: Marriage and Morals, 1929.
詳細情報:https://russell-j.com/beginner/MM16-040.HTM
これらの方針のいずれに対しても,大きな異議(反対)がある。完全に性を断つことは,特に結婚生活ですでに性に慣れている人にとっては,非常に辛いことである。それは,男性であれ,女性であれ,非常に多くの場合,早く年をとらせてしまうことになる。神経障害を引き起こす恐れもないわけではない。いずれにせよ,無理な努力をするために,感じが悪く,けちで,気難しいタイプの性格になりやすい。男性の中には,自制心が突然くずれて,残虐な行為に及ぶという,重大な危険が常に存在している。というのも,もしも,婚外の性交はすべて邪悪であると心から信じているなら,実際にそういう性交を求めるなら毒をくらわば皿まで(he might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb 子羊を盗んで縛り首になるくらいなら,親羊を盗んで縛り首になった方がまし)という気持ちになり,その結果,いっさいの道徳的な抑制をかなぐり捨ててしまう恐れがあるからである。
Chapter XVI: Divorce, n.4
Neither the Protestant nor the Catholic point of view in this matter can be upheld on rational grounds.
Let us take the Catholic point of view first. Suppose that the husband or wife becomes insane after marriage; it is in this case not desirable that further children should spring from an insane stock, nor yet that any children who may already be born should be brought into contact with insanity. Complete separation of the parents, even supposing that the one who is insane has longer or shorter lucid intervals, is therefore desirable in the interests of the children. To decree that in this case the sane partner shall never be permitted any legally recognized sex relations is a wanton cruelty which serves no public purpose whatever. The sane partner is left with a very painful choice. He or she may decide in favour of continence, which is what the law and public morals expect ; or in favour of surreptitious relations, presumably childless ; or in favour of what is called open sin, with or without children. To each of these courses there are grave objections. Complete abstinence from sex, especially for one already accustomed to it in marriage, is very painful. It leads either a man or a woman, very often, to become prematurely old. It is not unlikely to produce nervous disorders, and in any case the effort involved tends to produce a disagreeable, grudging, and ill-tempered type of character. In a man, there is always a grave danger that his self-control will suddenly give way, leading him to acts of brutality, for if he is genuinely persuaded that all intercourse outside marriage is wicked, he is likely, if he does seek such intercourse, to feel that he might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb, and therefore to throw off all moral restraints.
出典: Marriage and Morals, 1929.
詳細情報:https://russell-j.com/beginner/MM16-040.HTM
一般的に,新教徒(プロテスタント)もカトリック教徒も,離婚を家族の生物学的な目的の観点から見ないで,神学的な罪の観念の観点から見てきた。カトリック教徒は,結婚は神の視点から見れば解消できないものであると考えているので,二人の人間がひとたび結婚した以上,どちらも,相手が生きている間は,結婚生活にいかなることが起きたとしても,罪を犯さずに誰かほかの人と性交することはできないと必ず主張する。新教徒は,離婚に賛成してきたかぎりにおいては,次のような理由でそうしたのだった。即ち,ひとつには,カトリックの秘蹟に関する教義に反対するためであり,またひとつには,結婚を解消できないことが姦通を引き起こしていることだと認識したため(気づいたため)である。新教徒はまた,離婚を容易にすれば,姦通を減らすこともより困難でなくする,と信じていた。 その結果,そういった結婚が容易に解消される新教国においては,姦通は極めて不快感をもって見られるのに対して,離婚を認めない国々においては,姦通は罪深いものとみなされはするけれども,少なくとも男性に関するかぎり,見て見ぬふりをされる(be winked 黙っていようねと目で合図される)。帝政ロシアでは,離婚が非常にむずかしかったので,ゴーリキーの政治思想についてどう思ったにせよ,私生活に関してゴーリキーのことを(離婚がより簡単なところで思われるほど)より悪く思うものは(no one thought the worse of Goriki),だれ一人としていなかった。アメリカでは,その反対に,だれもゴーリキーの政治思想に反対するものはいなかったけれども,彼は,道徳的理由で追い立てられ,一夜の宿を与えようとするホテルは一つもなかった(no hotel would give hime)。
Chapter XVI: Divorce, n.3
Both Protestants and Catholics have, in general, viewed divorce not from the point of view of the biological purpose of the family, but from the point of view of the theological conception of sin. Catholics, since they hold that marriage is indissoluble in the sight of God, necessarily maintain that when two persons have once married, neither of them can, during the lifetime of the other, have sinless intercourse with any other person, no matter what may happen in the marriage. Protestants, in so far as they have favoured divorce, have done so partly out of opposition to Catholic doctrine on the sacraments, partly also because they perceived that the indissolubility of marriage is a cause of adultery, and they believed that easier divorce would make the diminution of adultery less difficult. One finds, accordingly, that in those Protestant countries where marriages are easily dissolved, adultery is viewed with extreme disfavour, while in countries which do not recognize divorce, adultery, though regarded as sinful, is winked at, at any rate where men are concerned. In Tsarist Russia, where divorce was exceedingly difficult, no one thought the worse of Gorki for his private life, whatever they may have thought of his politics. In America, on the contrary, where no one objected to his politics, he was hounded out on moral grounds, and no hotel would give him a night’s lodging.
出典: Marriage and Morals, 1929.
詳細情報:https://russell-j.com/beginner/MM16-030.HTM
One of the most curious things about divorce is the difference which has often existed between law and custom. The easiest divorce laws by no means always produce the greatest number of divorces. In China, before the recent upheavals, divorce was almost unknown, for, in spite of the example of Confucius, it was not considered quite respectable. Sweden allows divorce by mutual consent, which is a ground not recognized in any State of America; yet I find that in I922, the latest year for which I have comparable figures, the number of divorces per hundred thousand of the population was 24 in Sweden and 136 in the United States.
(note: Since then the total number of divorces and nullities in Sweden increased from 1,53l in I923 to 1,966 in 1927, while the rate per hundred marriages increased in U.S.A. from 13.4 to 15.)
I think this distinction between law and custom is important, for while I favour a somewhat lenient law on the subject, there are to my mind, so long as the bi-parental family persists as the norm, strong reasons why custom should be against divorce, except in somewhat extreme cases. I take this view because I regard marriage not primarily as a sexual partnership, but above all as an undertaking to co-operate in the procreation and rearing of children. It is possible, and even probable, as we have seen in earlier chapters, that marriage so understood may break down under the operation of various forces of which the economic are the chief, but if this should occur, divorce also would break down, since it is an institution dependent upon the existence of marriage, within which it affords a kind of safety-valve. Our present discussion, therefore, will move entirely within the framework of the bi-parental family considered “as the rule.
出典: Marriage and Morals, 1929.
詳細情報:https://russell-j.com/beginner/MM16-020.HTM
多くの非キリスト教国においては,離婚を夫がかちとるのは(これまで)非常に容易なことであったし,一部の国においては,妻にとっても(これまで)容易であった。モーゼの律法(The Mosaic Law)は,夫が離縁状(a bill of divorcement)を書くこと(妻に渡すこと)を許している。中国の法律は,妻が結婚の際持参してきた財産を(夫が)返しさえすれば,離婚を許していた。カトリック教会は,結婚は秘蹟であるという理由で,いかなる目的であろうとも,離婚を許していない。しかし,実際には,結婚無効の理由(nullity)はいくらでも見つかるので 特に,この世の偉大な方々(the great ones of the earth 支配層)に関する場合は この厳格さもいくらか軽減されている。(原注:マールボロ侯爵夫妻の場合は,妻が強制されて結婚したために結婚は無効とされたことが思い出される。しかも,この根拠は,夫妻が長年いっしょに生活し,二人の間には子供までいたのに有効とされたのである。)
Divorce as an institution has been permitted in most ages and countries for certain causes. It has never been intended to produce an alternative to the monogamic family, but merely to mitigate hardship where, for special reasons, the continuance of a marriage was felt to be intolerable. The law on the subject has been extraordinarily different in different ages and places, and varies at the present day, even within the United States, from the extreme of no divorce in South Carolina to the opposite extreme in Nevada. (note: In Nevada, the grounds are wilful (= willful) desertion, conviction of felony or infamous crime, habitual gross drunkenness, impotency at the time of marriage continuing to the time of the divorce, extreme cruelty, neglect to provide for one year, insanity for two years. See Sex in Civilization, edited by V. F. Claverton and S. D. Schmalhausen. London : George Allen & Unwin Ltd., I929, p.224.) In many non-Christian civilizations, divorce has been very easy for a husband to obtain, and in some it has also been easy for a wife. The Mosaic Law allows a husband to give a bill of divorcement; Chinese law allowed divorce provided the property which the wife had brought into the marriage was restored. The Catholic Church, on the ground that marriage is a sacrament, does not allow divorce for any purpose whatsoever, but in practice this severity is somewhat mitigated – especially where the great ones of the earth are concerned – by the fact that there are many grounds for nullity. (note: It will be remembered that in the case of the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough it was held that the marriage was null because she had been forced into it, and this ground was considered valid in spite of the fact that they had lived together for years and had children) In Christian countries the leniency towards divorce has been proportional to the degree of Protestantism. Milton, as everyone knows, wrote in favour of it, because he was very Protestant. The English Church, in the days when it considered itself Protestant, recognized divorce for adultery, though for no other cause. Nowadays the great majority of clergymen in the Church of England are opposed to all divorce. Scandinavia has easy divorce laws. So have the most Protestant parts of America. Scotland is more favourable to divorce than England. In France, anti-clericalism produces easy divorce. In the Soviet Union divorce is permitted at the request of either party, but as neither social nor legal penalties attach to either adultery or illegitimacy in Russia, marriage has there lost the importance which it has elsewhere, at any rate so far as the governing classes are concerned.
出典: Marriage and Morals, 1929.
詳細情報:https://russell-j.com/beginner/MM16-010.HTM
一方(これに対し),国際政府が確立されて,国家間の紛争が力(武力)ではなく法律で解決できるようになれば,状況は一変するだろう。そのような政府は,より気違いじみた形の国家主義は,いかなる国の教育カリキュラムに一切入れてはならない,と布告することができるだろう。また,国際的な超国家への忠誠心をあらゆる国において教え込むべきであり(should be culcated 徹底的に教える),国旗に対する現在の忠誠に代わる感情として,国際主義を植えつけるべきである,と主張することができるだろう。その場合には,過剰な画一性と,一風変わった人間に対する過剰で苛酷な迫害の危険性はまだ残るだろうが,戦争を助長する危険性は取り除かれるだろう。実際,超国家による教育のコントロール(統御)は,積極的な戦争防止策となるだろう。
If, on the other hand, an international Government were established, capable of substituting law for force in disputes between nations, the situation would be entirely different. Such a Government could decree that nationalism in its more insane forms should be no part of the educational curriculum in any country. It could insist that loyalty to the international super-State should everywhere be taught, and that internationalism should be inculcated as a sentiment in place of the present devotion to the national flag. In that case, although the danger of too great uniformity and too severe a persecution of freaks would still exist, the danger of promoting war would be eliminated. Indeed, the control of the super-State over education would be a positive safeguard against war. The conclusion seems to be that the substitution of the State for the father would be a gain to civilization if the State were international, but that so long as the State is national and militaristic it represents an increase of the risk to civilization from war. The family is decaying fast, and internationalism is growing slowly. The situation, therefore, is one which justifies grave apprehensions. Nevertheless, it is not hopeless, since internationalism may grow more quickly in the future than it has done in the past. Fortunately, perhaps, we cannot foretell the future, and we have therefore the right to hope, if not to expect, that it may be an improvement upon the present.
出典: Marriage and Morals, 1929.
詳細情報:https://russell-j.com/beginner/MM15-100.HTM
国家が父親の肩代わりをすること(国家による父親の肩代わり)は,これまでに(yet)西欧で行われてきたかぎりでは,大体において(in the main),大きな進歩である。それは,社会の健康(保険)と教育の一般的水準を著しく向上させた。(またそれは,)子供への虐待を減らし,デイヴィイッド・コパーフィールドが受けたような苦痛を不可能にした。特に,家族制度がうまくいかない時にそこから生じる最悪の害悪を防ぐことで,肉体的健康と知的達成の一般的水準を引き続き高めていくものと期待される。
けれども,国家が家族(家庭)の肩代わりをすることには,非常に由々しい危険がある(注:岩波文庫の安藤訳では,「父親の肩代わり」と訳されているが,ここでは father ではなく,family となっており,国家が母親の肩代わりをすることが含まれている)。親というもの(両親)は,一般的に言って,子供を愛しているので,子供を単なる政治的計画の素材とみなしたりしない。(また)このような態度を国家に期待することはできない。いろいろな機関(institutions 公共施設)で子供と実際に接触する個々人,たとえば,学校教師は,あまりにも労働が過重で給料が安いということがなければ,親の持っている個人的な感情をいくらか持ち続けることができるかもしれない。
The substitution of the State for the father, so far as it has yet gone in the West, is in the main a great advance. It has immensely improved the health of the community and the general level of education. It has diminished cruelty to children, and has made impossible such sufferings as those of David Copperfield. It may be expected to continue to raise the general level of physical health and intellectual attainment, especially by preventing the worst evils resulting from the family system where it goes wrong. There are, however, very grave dangers in the substitution of the State for the family. Parents, as a rule, are fond of their children, and do not regard them merely as material for political schemes. The State cannot be expected to have this attitude. The actual individuals who come in contact with children in institutions, for example school-teachers, may, if they are not too overworked and underpaid, retain something of the personal feeling that parents have. But teachers have little power; the power belongs to administrators. The administrators never see the children whose lives they control, and being of an administrative type (since otherwise they would not have obtained the posts they occupy), they are probably peculiarly apt to regard human being, not as ends in themselves, but as material for some kind of construction. Moreover, the administrator invariably likes uniformity. It is convenient for statistics and pigeon-holing, and if it is the “right” sort of uniformity it means the existence of a large number of human beings of the sort that he considers desirable. Children handed over to the mercy of institutions will therefore tend to be all alike, while the few who cannot conform to the recognized pattern will suffer persecution, not only from their fellows, but from the authorities. This means that many of those who have the greatest potentialities will be harried and tortured until their spirit is broken. It means that the vast majority, who succeed in conforming, will become very sure of themselves, very prone to persecution, and very incapable of listening patiently to any new idea. Above all, so long as the world remains divided into competing militaristic States, the substitution of public bodies for parents in education means an intensification of what is called patriotism, i.e. a willingness to indulge in mutual extermination without a moment’s hesitation, whenever the Governments feel so inclined. Undoubtedly patriotism, so-called, is the gravest danger to which civilization is at present exposed, and anything that increases its virulence is more to be dreaded than plague, pestilence, and famine. At present young people have a divided loyalty, on the one hand to their parents, on the other to the State. If it should happen that their sole loyalty was to the State, there is grave reason to fear that the world would become even more bloodthirsty than it is at present. I think, therefore, that so long as the problem of internationalism remains unsolved, the increasing share of the State in the education and care of children has dangers so grave as to outweigh its undoubted advantages.
出典: Marriage and Morals, 1929.
詳細情報:https://russell-j.com/beginner/MM15-090.HTM