????????

本人外語能力實(shí)在有限，有不通順或翻譯錯(cuò)誤地方感謝指正

本篇是一篇采訪，對(duì)象是艾瑪戈德曼

????? 無治主義對(duì)女性來說意味著什么（艾瑪戈德曼）

??? ”無治主義思想對(duì)我，特別作為一名女性，傳達(dá)給我了什么？”

??? “ 相較于其他人，女性她們所獲得更多的是——自由與平等”

? ? 愛瑪戈德曼——無治主義的女祭司，俄羅斯的流亡者，被警察們說恐嚇并且現(xiàn)在身居圣路易斯的無治主義賓客——迅速且認(rèn)真的回答著我的問題。

?? 我在俄勒岡州大道1722號(hào)找到了她，這是一棟老式的兩層磚房，是一位同情者的家，并不是如之前所述的地點(diǎn)。

?? 一位好脾氣，身材魁梧的德國女士接待了我并把握帶領(lǐng)到了一個(gè)典型的德式餐廳，里面的所有東西都是如同肥皂和水做的一樣干凈。在用圍裙仔細(xì)幫我擦去椅子上的灰塵后，她將我告訴給了這位大膽的小小思想家。我很受歡迎。當(dāng)我發(fā)現(xiàn)愛瑪戈德曼時(shí)，她正喝著咖啡吃著面包和果凍，這便是她的早餐。愛瑪身著干凈的并用高級(jí)密織棉布所織成的女式襯衫和短裙。腰部和裙子整整齊齊，雙腳裹在一雙寬松的布拖鞋里。她看起來不像一個(gè)俄羅斯的虛無主義者，假使她越過邊境回到祖國，她恐怕要送到西伯利亞。

?? “你相信婚姻嗎？”我問道

?? “并不”這個(gè)美麗的小無治主義者像往常一樣迅速的回答到“我相信兩個(gè)人并不是通過鑒定人，牧師或是法院亦或者通過身體的任何部位才相愛在一起的。他們自己決定著彼此之間的關(guān)系。當(dāng)雙方的其中一方對(duì)此感到厭倦的時(shí)候，他們可以如同開始的時(shí)候一樣悄咪咪的結(jié)束這段關(guān)系?！?/span>

?? 戈德曼女士在強(qiáng)調(diào)她的話時(shí)輕輕的點(diǎn)著頭，真是個(gè)漂亮的腦袋，并伴有著棕色的頭發(fā)，砰的一聲梳到一邊。她的眼睛是純藍(lán)色的，她的面色白皙。她的鼻子雖然相當(dāng)寬，是條頓人的鼻子，但形狀很好。她身材矮小但身形豐滿，相比與俄羅斯人她更像德國人。她唯一的缺點(diǎn)是嚴(yán)重的近視，即使帶著眼鏡也看不起手指的紋路。

?? “應(yīng)當(dāng)是結(jié)成某種同盟”她繼續(xù)說到“并不是像現(xiàn)在這樣，（婚姻）只給與女人一個(gè)支持或者家，而是因?yàn)閻劬驮谀抢?，而這種狀態(tài)（愛情）應(yīng)當(dāng)是通過自身“內(nèi)部革命”來實(shí)現(xiàn)，簡(jiǎn)而言之，是安那其式的。”

?? ? 她平靜的說出了這句話，就如同只是表達(dá)了一種常識(shí)。但她眼中閃爍的光芒表明，在她繁忙的大腦中，“內(nèi)部革命”已經(jīng)在起作用。

??? “無治思想對(duì)女性許諾了什么？”

?? “它為女性帶來了一切，例如自由和平等那些女性現(xiàn)在仍未擁有的。”

?? “女士們現(xiàn)在不自由嗎？”

?? “自由！她們現(xiàn)在被她們的丈夫和孩子們所奴役。她們應(yīng)該像男人一樣參與進(jìn)商業(yè)社會(huì)；她們應(yīng)該在世界上與他們平起平坐，就像現(xiàn)實(shí)一樣。女士們和男士們一樣能干，但當(dāng)勞動(dòng)時(shí)，工資卻少了。為什么？因?yàn)樗┤棺佣皇谴┭澴?？?/span>

?? “如果女性根據(jù)男性理想家庭生活的想法來實(shí)現(xiàn)，那一切會(huì)變成什么樣子？”

?? ? “理想的家庭生活，的確！女人們并不是家庭中的女王，而是孩子和丈夫們的仆人、情婦和奴隸。她失去了自己的個(gè)性，甚至是名字。她是約翰·布朗（John Brown）的情婦或湯姆·瓊斯（Tom Jones）的情婦；僅僅如此，這便是我的看法?！?span id="s0sssss00s" class="color-default font-size-16">
?? 戈德曼女士的口音很動(dòng)聽。她發(fā)音時(shí)滾動(dòng)著r，把r改成v，反之亦然，發(fā)音是真正的俄語口音，并通過手勢(shì)來解釋。當(dāng)她變得興奮（原文：become exited）時(shí)，可以通過肢體來更好解釋她的意思。

?? “你認(rèn)為無治時(shí)代下怎么跟孩子們相處呢”

?? “孩子們會(huì)被提供一個(gè)普通的家，大型的寄宿制學(xué)校，在那里他們會(huì)得到適當(dāng)?shù)恼疹櫯c教育，和家里一樣，當(dāng)然更多情況下會(huì)比家里更好。只有極少數(shù)的母親懂得如何照顧孩子，這目前還是一個(gè)很少人學(xué)過的學(xué)問。”

?? “對(duì)那些對(duì)家庭生活或者照顧自己的孩子有依戀的女性，她們?cè)趺崔k？”

?? “哦，當(dāng)然，那些有這種欲望的女性可以把孩子留在家里，并按照自己的意愿嚴(yán)格履行家務(wù)。但這也給那些渴望更廣闊事業(yè)并有所成就的女性提供了更多的機(jī)會(huì)。沒有窮人，沒有資本家，只有公有制，這個(gè)地球?qū)⑻峁┗酵皆诹硪粋€(gè)世界尋找的天堂。”

?? 她沉思地凝視著空咖啡杯的底部，仿佛在想象中看到了理想的狀態(tài)已經(jīng)是現(xiàn)實(shí)了。

?? “誰會(huì)照顧這些小孩呢？”我打斷了她的遐想。

?? “每個(gè)人，”她回答說，“都有適合自己職業(yè)的資格和品質(zhì)。我是一名受過訓(xùn)練的護(hù)士，我喜歡照顧病人。所以對(duì)于一些女性來說，她們回想照顧和教育孩子?！?/span>

?? “這些孩子難道不會(huì)對(duì)失去父母對(duì)他們的愛，從而感到孤獨(dú)而失去陪伴嗎？”我突然想到這些可愛的孩子們?nèi)缤P(guān)在了孤兒院。

?? “父母?jìng)內(nèi)匀豢梢韵瘳F(xiàn)在一樣有機(jī)會(huì)獲得他們的信任和感情。他們可以與孩子在學(xué)校隨心所欲的在一起度過時(shí)光。孩子們將會(huì)是充滿愛，健康，堅(jiān)強(qiáng)，而不是現(xiàn)在這樣，在大多數(shù)情況下，他們出生于父母間的仇恨和家庭糾紛?！?br>

?? “什么是你所說的愛呢？”

?? “當(dāng)男女中的一半發(fā)現(xiàn)另一半身上有他們所欽佩的品質(zhì)，并傲慢的想要取悅那個(gè)人，甚至是犧牲自己的情感；當(dāng)這種微妙的東西將他們吸引在了一起，那些有”愛“的人會(huì)認(rèn)識(shí)到自己內(nèi)心深處感受到的一切，這就是我所說的愛?！彼f完，臉上泛著玫瑰色的紅暈。

?? “那一個(gè)人可以在同一時(shí)間喜歡很多人嗎？”

?? “我并不認(rèn)為這有什么不可的，如果他們有著相同可愛的品質(zhì)在這些人當(dāng)中。有什么能阻止一個(gè)人在所有人身上都愛著同樣的東西？”

?? ”假設(shè)我們不再愛著對(duì)方并如同我之前所說一樣找到另一半，我們會(huì)好好談?wù)劊⑶那牡馗淖兩罘绞?。家庭的私人事物因此不必在法庭上辯論，因?yàn)檫@是公共的性質(zhì)（/財(cái)產(chǎn)）（原文：property）沒有人能控制感情，因此不存在嫉妒?！?br>

?? “至于心痛（指分手后），哦是的”她悲傷的說著“但這不會(huì)是仇恨，因?yàn)樗麄儠?huì)抵觸這種關(guān)系。但只要人的心還在跳動(dòng)，他們就會(huì)永遠(yuǎn)的心痛?！?br>

?? “我的宗教信仰，”她笑著重復(fù)道“當(dāng)我還是一個(gè)女孩的時(shí)候，就像你所知的，我是一個(gè)猶太教徒，但現(xiàn)在我是個(gè)無神論者，沒有人可以通過《圣經(jīng)》的靈感或者上帝來證明使我滿意。我并不相信宗教中的后世，除非他是由人體內(nèi)存在的物質(zhì)所證明。它是由另外一種形式所存在的并且我不認(rèn)為任何曾經(jīng)創(chuàng)造過的東西都會(huì)丟失，它以一種形狀不斷地前進(jìn)，然后又以另一種形狀前進(jìn)。 世界上并不存在靈魂，一切是物質(zhì)的世界。”

?? 漂亮的戈德曼小姐說完了話，當(dāng)我問她是否打算結(jié)婚時(shí)，她的臉頰上泛起了淡淡的紅暈。

?? “不，我并不他人的婚姻，當(dāng)然我也不應(yīng)該傳道授業(yè)?！?br>

?? ?她以輕松的姿態(tài)坐著，一條腿交叉在另一條腿上。從任何意義上說，她都是一個(gè)外表女性化的女人，有著男性化的頭腦和勇氣。當(dāng)她說周三晚上有50名警察參加她的講座時(shí)，她笑了，并補(bǔ)充道：“如果有人扔了炸彈，我肯定會(huì)為此受到指責(zé)。”

What does anarchy hold out to me—a woman?”

“More to woman than to anyone else—everything which she has not—freedom and equality.”

Quickly, earnestly Emma Goldman, the priestess of anarchy, exiled from Russia, feared by police, and now a guest of St. Louis Anarchists,* gave this answer to my question.

I found her at No. 1722 Oregon avenue, an old-style twostory brick house, the home of a sympathizer? —not a relative as has been stated.

I was received by a good-natured, portly German woman, and taken back to a typical German dining-room—everything clean and neat as soap and water could make them. After carefully dusting a chair for me with her apron, she took my name back to the bold little free-thinker. I was welcome. I found Emma Goldman sipping her coffee and partaking of bread and jelly, as her morning’s repast. She was neatly clad in a percale shirt waist and skirt, with white collar and cuffs, her feet encased in a loose pair of cloth slippers. She doesn’t look like a Russian Nihilist who will be sent to Siberia if she ever crosses the frontier of her native land.

“Do you believe in marriage?” I asked.

“I do not,” answered the fair little Anarchist, as promptly as before. “I believe that when two people love each other that no judge, minister, or court, or body of people, have anything to do with it. They themselves are the ones to determine the relations which they shall hold with one another. When that relation becomes irksome to either party, or one of the parties, then it can be as quietly terminated as it was formed.”

Miss Goldman gave a little nod of her head to emphasize her words, and quite a pretty head it was, crowned with soft brown hair, combed with a bang and brushed to one side. Her eyes are the honest blue, her complexion clear and white. Her nose though rather broad and of a Teutonic type, was well formed. She is short of stature, with a well-rounded figure. Her whole type is more German than Russian. The only serious physical failing that she has is in her eyes. She is so extremely nearsighted that with glasses she can scarcely distinguish print.

“The alliance should be formed,” she continued, “not as it is now, to give the woman a support and home, but because the love is there, and that state of affairs can only be brought about by an internal revolution, in short, Anarchy.”

She said this as calmly as though she had just expressed an ordinary every-day fact, but the glitter in her eyes showed the “internal revolutions” already at work in her busy brain.

“What does Anarchy promise woman?”

“It holds everything for woman—freedom, equality—everything that woman has not now.”

“Isn’t woman free?”

“Free! She is the slave of her husband and her children. She should take her part in the business world the same as the man; she should be his equal before the world, as she is in the reality. She is as capable as he, but when she labors she gets less wages. Why? Because she wears skirts instead of trousers.”

“But what is to become of the ideal home life, and all that now surrounds the mother, according to a man’s idea?”

“Ideal home life, indeed! The woman, instead of being the household queen, told about in story books, is the servant, the mistress, and the slave of both husband and children. She loses her own individuality entirely, even her name she is not allowed to keep. She is the mistress of John Brown or the mistress of Tom Jones; she is that and nothing else. That is the way I think of her.”

Miss Goldman has a pleasant accent. She rolls her r’s and changes her r’s into v’s and vice-versa, with a truly Russian pronunciation. She gesticulates a great deal. When she becomes exited her hands and feet and shoulders all help to illustrate her meanings.

“What would you do with the children of the Anarchistic era?”

“The children would be provided with common homes, big boarding schools, where they will be properly cared for and educated and in every way as good, and in most cases, better care than they would receive in their own homes. Very few mothers know how to take proper care of their children, anyway. It is a science only a very few have learned.”

“But the women that desire a home life and the care of their own children, the domestic woman, what of her?”

“Oh, of course, the women that desire could keep their children home and confine themselves as strictly as domestic duties as they desired. But it would give those women who desire something broader, a chance to attain any height they desired. With no poor, and no capitalists, and one common purse, this earth will afford the heaven that the Christians are looking for in another world."

She gazed contemplatively in the bottom of the empty coffee cup, as though she saw in imagination the ideal State, already an actuality.

“Who will take care of the children?” I asked, breaking in upon her reverie.

“Every one,” she answered, “has tastes and qualifications suiting them to some occupation. I am a trained nurse. I like to care of the sick. So it will be with some women. They will want to care for and teach the children.”

“Won’t the children lose their love for their parents and feel the lack of their companionship?” A thought of the affectionate little darlings being relegated to a sort of orphan asylum crossed my mind.

“The parents will have the same opportunities of gaining their confidences and affections as they have now. They can spend just as much time there as they please or have them with them just as often as desired. They will be the children of love—healthy, strong-minded—and not as now, in most cases, born of hate and domestic dissensions.”

“What do you call love?”

“When a man or a woman finds some quality or qualities in another that they admire and has an overweening desire to please that person, even to the sacrificing of personal feeling; when there is that subtle something drawing them together, that those who love recognize, and feel it in the inmost fiber of their being, then I call that love.” She finished speaking and her face was suffused with a rosy blush.

“Can a person love more than one at a time?”

“I don’t see why not—if they find the same lovable qualities in several persons. What should prevent one loving the same things in all of them?”

“If we cease to love the man or woman and find some one else, as I said before, we talk it over and quietly change the mode of living. The private affairs of the family need not then be talked over in the courts and become public property. No one can control the affections, therefore there should be no jealousies.

Heartaches? Oh, yes,” she said, sadly, “but not hatred because he or she has tired of the relations. The human race will always have heartaches as long as the heart beats in the breast.

“My religion,” she laughingly repeated. “I was of the Hebrew faith when a girl—you know I am a Jewess—but now I am an atheist. No one has been able to prove either the inspiration of the Bible or the existence of a God to my satisfaction. I believe in no hereafter except the hereafter that is found by the physical matter existing in the human body. I think that lives again in some other form, and I don’t think that anything once created over is lost—it goes on and on in first one shape, then another. There is no such thing as a soul—it is all the physical matter.”

Pretty Miss Goldman finished speaking, and a delicate flush mounted to her cheek as I asked her if she intended to marry.

“No; I don’t believe in marriage for others, and I certainly should not preach one thing and practice another.”

She sat in an easy attitude with one leg crossed over the other. She is in every sense a womanly looking woman, with masculine mind and courage. She laughed as she said there were fifty police at her lecture on Wednesday night, and she added, “If there had been a bomb thrown I surely would have been blamed for it.”