(1969) The Seven Minutes (63 page)

‘Go ahead,’ she said uncertainly.

He began to read excerpt one to her.’ “There was but one point forgot in this treaty, and that was the manner in which the lady and myself should be obliged to undress and get to bed …” ’

When he had finished, he looked up. ‘Mrs White, was that obscene or not obscene?’

‘Not obscene,’ she said with obvious relief.

‘Very well. Now excerpt two.’

He began to read to her from excerpt two. ‘ “She undressed brutally, ripping off the thin laces of her corset so violently that they would whistle round her hips like a gliding snake. She went on tiptoe, barefooted, to see once more that the door was locked, then with one movement, she would let her clothes fall at once to the ground; - then, pale and serious, without a word, she would throw herself against his breast with a long shudder.” ’

He read on for another paragraph, and then he looked at the witness. ‘Obscene or not obscene?’ he asked.

‘Not obscene.’

Thank you, Mrs White. Next, excerpt three.’

Carefully he read excerpt three to her.’ “The manager looked at

his lovely prize, so beautiful, so winsome, so difficult to be won, and made strange resolutions. His passion had gotten to that stage now where it was no longer colored with reason. He did not trouble over little barriers of this sort in the face of so much loveliness. He would accept the situation with all its difficulties; he would not try to answer the objections which cold truth thrust upon him. He would promise anything, everything, and trust to fortune to disentangle him. He would make a try for Paradise …” ’

Barrett raised his head. ‘Mrs White, tell us, obscene or not obscene?’

She wore an adenoidal smile. ‘Not obscene, not at all.’

‘Finally, the fourth and last excerpt. Actually, these passages are too lengthy to quote from in detail. If you don’t mind, I’ll take the liberty of synopsizing some of the passages - I’ll show you the original passages marked in the book when I’ve finished - and I’ll also read you some of the words and phrases in this work.’

He glanced down at the sheet in his hand. ‘We have here a young man who is married to a young woman, but he has been unable to consummate their marriage. The young man dies and his wife is widowed. Now the brother of the dead young man appears before the widow, determined to impregnate her. Either before or during copulation with her, he has second thoughts about what he is doing. He refrained from giving her his semen, and he masturbates instead. Later we have another adventure in this young widow’s life. She is angry at her father-in-law. She wants to expose his own lechery. One day she disguises herself as a prostitute and allows her father-in-law to pick her up and copulate with her. When the father-in-law learns that his widowed daughter-in-law has become pregnant, he wants to punish her, but then he is exposed as the one who made her pregnant.’

Next Barrett began to read phrases and words from the book. Here ‘everyone neighed after his neighbor’s wife.’ Here there was ‘whoring’ and ‘whoremongers’ and the description of a gang rape. Here there were ‘breasts’ and ‘tits’ and ‘buttocks uncovered’ and ‘dung’ and ‘piss’ and ‘fornicators’ and ‘lewdness.’

He stopped. ‘So much for the fourth extract. Now, tell me, Mrs White, is this book obscene or not obscene?’

‘Obscene,’ she said. ‘Utterly and definitely obscene.’

‘Perhaps, Mrs White, you might like to see the photocopies of all four books in question, each marked numerically in the order that I read it.’ He set the photostats on the edge of the witness box, but she did not touch them. She waited.

Barrett half turned toward the jury, then he swung back to confront the average woman. ‘Mrs White, the first extract that I read you was the most suggestive passage I could find in Sterne’s A Sentimental Journey through France and Italy. You said that passage was not obscene. But in 1819 the book was declared obscene by the Vatican and banned throughout the world. The

second extract was one of the more controversial ones from Flaubert’s Madame Bovary. You said this passage was not obscene. But in 1856, when Flaubert’s book was published in France, it was taken into court on charges of obscenity, and as recently as 1954 it was blacklisted by certain purity groups in the United States. The third extract was one of the more suggestives ones from Dreiser’s Sister Carrie. You said this passage was not obscene. But in 1900 when the book appeared, it was banned in Boston, and to avoid further charges of obscenity it was withdrawn from circulation and suppressed. As for the fourth and last book from which I quoted, the only extract you said was obscene, utterly obscene, that extract was taken from a modern translation of the Old Testament of the Holy Bible!’

Momentarily Mrs White was in shock. With a struggle, she began to recover. ‘Tha - that’s a cheap trick,’ she stammered, still shaken.

Barrett ignored her distress. ‘Mrs White, do you still feel as certain about your ability to recognize what is obscene and what is not obscene?’

Mrs White was becoming mussed. ‘It’s not the same - you pulled out that Bible material - all those words - from lots of different chapters of the Bible -‘

Judge Upshaw interrupted. ‘Mrs White, you must reply to defense counsel’s question. … Mr Reporter, the answer will be stricken as not being responsive. Read the question again, please.’

The question was read again.

‘Of course I know what is obscene and what isn’t!’ she exclaimed. ‘I’m trying to say the Bible isn’t obscene. Anyone knows that. Everybody knows it is the Good Book. If you don’t read it completely, spiritually, if you pick out words or modernize certain customs, put them in modern language, of course you can make it sound awful. As I said, it’s a trick you -‘

Barrett looked up at the bench. ‘Your Honor, I do not wish to be argumentative in any sense. But since the witness impugns my motives, may I respond and clarify this aspect of the crossexamination ?’

‘Proceed,’ said Judge Upshaw curtly.

Barrett considered the witness again. ‘Mrs White, in 1895 a gentleman in Clay Center, Kansas, was arrested and found guilty of purveying obscene writing through the mails - obscene quotations - and it was with much embarrassment that the prosecution later learned that these quotations had merely been extracts from the Holy Bible. As you suggest, anything may be found obscene if portions of it are read out of context. In 1928, Radclyffe Hall published a sad and tender story about two lesbians. This novel was called The Well of Loneliness. The book contained no coarse language, no overt sexual descriptions. It was a dignified appeal to the public to treat female homosexuality with tolerance. Yet, under

an antiquated definition of obscenity laid down by Chief Justice Cockburn in 1868, a phrase taken out of context did indeed condemn this book. The phrase found in The Well of Loneliness read, “And that night they were not divided.” Seven words were enough to condemn the entire book. But when Judge Woolsey, in his opinion on Ulysses, announced that a book must be judged “in its entirety,” a new and better standard was established for guiding obscenity rulings.

‘No, Mrs White, you and I do not differ on this point. No work should be judged by passages taken out of context. All works, including the Bible, should be examined as a whole. In employing extracts, I was merely trying to show how difficult it is for any person, even the justifiably concerned average, person, to know what really is or is not obscene for someone else. Of course I am in complete agreement with you about the Bible. I do not for one moment believe that the Bible is obscene. Yet there are others who disagree with the two of us. Havelock Ellis has said, “There appears to be no definition of obscenity which will not condemn the Bible.” In fact, in studies Ellis made of children, he learned that many youngsters were sexually confused, possibly aroused, by portions of the Bible. For example, the story I synopsized for you of the brother who goes to copulate with his sister-in-law, and then masturbates - that, of course, was from Chapter Thirty-eight of Genesis, where Onan spills his seed upon the ground, thereby adding the word “onanism,” a synonym for “masturbation,” to our vocabulary. Yet we agree that, when taken as a whole, the Bible is worthwhile literature because it reflects not only the reality of life, with all its ugliness and violence and perversions, but the wonder and beauty of life as well. When the Bible dwells on sex, even though this portrayal of sex may evoke lustful images and sexual desire in the reader, it is not considered harmful, because it is true. It was Judge Jerome Frank who remarked that no sane person could believe it to be socially harmful if sexual desires led to normal sexual behavior, since without such behavior the human race would soon disappear. This is why, Mrs White -‘

Mrs White was getting angrier. ‘But you made the Bible sound dirty, just to confuse me.’

‘I couldn’t make it sound dirty, because, I repeat, it is not dirty. They made love in those days too. They procreated and -‘

Elmo Duncan was on his feet. ‘Objection, Your Honor! I do believe counsel for the defense is going too far. I object on the grounds that he is continuing to be argumentative.’

‘Objection sustained.’

‘Sorry, Your Honor,’ said Barrett.

But Mrs White was not through. She waved aloft the photostats and began to upbraid Barrett. ‘And the other three extracts from Flaubert and Dreiser and - and Sterne. I don’t care what once happened to their books, that they were once called obscene. I still say

they are not obscene right now, because we’re talking about today, community standards today -‘

‘Exactly, and how they continue to change. Now, then -‘

‘ - and we’re talking about The Seven Minutes, that’s the subject,’ said Mrs White. That doesn’t reflect life like the Bible. That only reflects the sick mind of a pornographer.’

Barrett could see that Judge Upshaw was about to admonish the witness to cease debating, but then the Judge realized that Barrett was ready to resume. The Judge nodded to him, and Barrett resumed.

‘Mrs White, let’s get back to The Seven Minutes.’

He turned and formally requested People’s Exhibit Three, and once he had received the court copy of the Jadway book from the clerk, he turned to an early section in the book, marked it with a paper clip, and then turned to another section near the back and marked it with another paper clip. He handed the novel to Mrs White.

‘You will note, Mrs White,’ said Barrett, ‘that I have marked two scenes in The Seven Minutes - each is no longer than a page -and now I would like you to read them aloud to the court.’

Mrs White had the book open on her lap. She skimmed the first scene, turned to the second, then slapped the book shut and handed it back to Barrett. ‘I refuse to read this aloud. Why should I read it?’

, ‘Merely to clarify the subject matter for the jury,’ said Barrett, before we discuss these passages.’

Judge Upshaw bent toward the witness. ‘Mrs White, the defense counsel’s request is not unreasonable. Of course, you don’t have to read the passages aloud, if that is your wish.’

‘It is my wish. Let the defense counsel read them aloud.’

Barrett shrugged. ‘I’ll waive the reading, Your Honor. The jury may be sufficiently acquainted with the scenes in question already. I should like to interrogate the witness about these two scenes, if I may.’

‘Proceed,’ said Judge Upshaw.

Barrett turned to the witness once more. The apple-pie face was no longer pretty. ‘Mrs White, as an average person, what are your objections to these passages?’

“The language, for one thing, the filthy words.’

Barrett hesitated. Through his head there passed the warning from two psychoanalysts, Drs Eberhard and Phyllis Kronhausen: If we encourage a patient who does not dare to pronounce a taboo word to use it, without removing simultaneously from his conscience the gnawing sense of wrongdoing, we are doing him more harm than good. Such attempts would be just as ill-advised as telling a sexually inhibited person to go ahead and indulge himself while he is still plagued by feelings of remorse and shame. Yet once the patient was made guilt-free, then the expression of otherwise

unacceptable ideas and words would be far preferable to their suppression. But now how to overcome the average person’s feelings of shame? The language in The Seven Minutes had to be discussed openly, but he must bring the witness to this slowly.

Mrs White had objected to Jadway’s language, the filthy words.

‘Mrs White, the great Chinese philosopher Confucius once wrote, “If language is not used rightly, then what is said is not what is meant. If what is saidis not what is meant, then that which ought to be done is left undone; if it remains undone, morals and art will be corrupted; if morals and art are corrupted, justice will go awry, and if justice goes awry, the people will stand about in helpless confusion.” Do you agree to that?’

She was cautious. ‘I agree people should say what they mean.’

‘Do you feel writers should say what they mean when writing about sex?’

‘Yes. But they can do that without using indecent words - like the words in that book.’

‘Can you be specific, Mrs White, about the words in The Seven Minutes that offend you?’

‘Well, I’m certainly not going to use them.’

‘Then point them out. Let me see what you object to.’ He held the book open for her, and she leaned forward, scanned the pages and pointed to the words. ‘Fine, Mrs White,’ said Barrett. ‘I appreciate your cooperation. Now, one word we have here is the word “fuck,” and the other word is “fucking,” and you object to them?’

‘They’re absolutely dirty.’

‘Would you have been happier, Mrs White, if the author had used such euphemisms or circumlocutions as “they slept together,” or “they were intimate,” or “they made love”?’

‘It would have been better. I’d have understood just as well what he was trying to say.’

‘But you might have been wrong. If Cathleen and her man slept together, were intimate, made love, they might have been doing many things other than simply fucking.’ He paused. ‘Mrs White, the word “fuck” is the only exact word for this particular act. It cannot be mistaken. Since the euphemisms give you the same mental image, why do you consider the precise word to be obscene?’