463、⑴找情妇或纳妾有两种方式，这两种方式彼此截然不同，一种与妻子联结，一种与妻子分离。找情妇或纳妾有两种方式，这两种方式截然不同：一种是男人让一个女人与妻子共享他的床，与她并妻子同时生活；一种是男人与妻子合法、正当分离后，让另一个女人分享他的床。
找情妇或纳妾的这两种方式彼此相去甚远，犹如肮脏的亚麻布和干净衣服的区别。那些看问题又清楚又准确的人能看出这一点，而那些看问题又混乱又模糊的人则看不出。那些处于婚姻之爱的人能看到这一点，那些陷入奸淫之爱的人则看不到。源于两性情爱的一切对后者来说，如同黑夜那样幽暗；而对前者来说，则如同白昼那样清晰。尽管如此，那些陷入奸淫的人仍能看到这些衍生物及其区别，当然，不是凭他们自己心里明白，而是由别人告知。奸淫者同样能提升他们的理解力，和贞洁的已婚者一样。然而，奸淫者从别人那里得知这些区别后，若将其理解力沉浸于自己污秽的乐趣，就会从记忆抹除它们。因为贞洁与不贞洁、理智与疯狂无法共存；不过，当保持分离时，它们就能被理解力区分开。
在灵界，我曾问一些不视奸淫为罪恶的人，他们是否知道行淫、找情人、找情妇或纳妾的两种方式，以及奸淫的各个等级之间的一个区别。他们说，这一个就像那一个。我又问婚姻是否也和它们一样，他们四下里看了看，确认没有任何神职人员在场后，说，婚姻本质上也一样。那些在思想观念上视奸淫为罪恶之人则不同。这些人说，他们已经在属于觉知的内在观念中看到区别，只是尚未努力辨别并区分它们。我可以肯定，天堂天使甚至能觉知这些区别中的最小细节。因此，为了清楚说明找情妇或纳妾的这两种方式彼此对立，其中一种摧毁婚姻之爱，另一种则不然，我首先描述有害的这一种，然后再描述无害的那一种。
463、（1）很明显这两种关系有很大不同。一个是多了一个对手，要与妻子和情人分享婚姻生活。第二种情况是在与妻子合法分离后，有另一个女人来取代妻子。
这二者的区别就象是一块脏布和一块干净的布之间的区别一样。一些注意区别情况的人会看到这之间的不同，而一些人则不对它们进行区分。那些处于真正的婚姻之爱中的人可以看到这点，而那些处于通奸中的人则不然。前者对与异性的关系的看法好象是处于光明之中，而后者的看法则处于黑暗之中。
那些处于通奸的人中的人会从别人的谈论中看到这两种关系的不同。但是，通奸者在听到这些后却将其扔之在外，而沉浸在自己污秽的快乐之中。
在精神世界中我曾经问过一些不将通奸看成罪的人。问他是否知道婚前放荡性行为，与一个情人交往，交往情人的两种情况，还有不同程度的通奸之间的区别。他们说它们都是相同的。我又问它们是不是与婚姻是一回事，他们向四周张望了一下，确认没有神职人员在场时，他们说，它们都是一回事。相反，在那些将通奸视为犯罪的人中，他们说他们头脑中知道它们之间有区别，但是还没有对它们进行仔细分析。
我可以说天国中的天使对它们的区别也只是有一点点了解。
因此，为了区别与情人交往的两种不同情况，我首先讲一下破坏婚姻之爱的一种，然后再讲不会破坏婚姻之爱的一种。
463. (i) There are two ways of having a concubine, which are inherently very different, one in association with a wife, the other without such an association.
There are two ways of having a concubine which are very different; one is to have a woman to share one's bed with one's wife, and to live at the same time both with her and with the wife. The other is, after a lawful and just separation from a wife, to take another woman to share one's bed.
[2] Those who have a refined and accurate perception of the matter can see that these two ways of having a concubine are as remote from each other as dirty linen is from clean laundry; but those whose perception is muddled and indistinct cannot see this. Those who have conjugial love can see this, those who have a love for adultery cannot. For the latter all that derives from sexual love is dark as night, for the former it is in broad daylight. All the same the adulterous can see what is derived and how to distinguish this, admittedly not in themselves of their own accord, but when they are told by others. Both adulterers and chaste married people are similarly able to raise their intellects; but an adulterer, after learning from others how to make these distinctions, goes on to wipe them from his memory, when he plunges his intellect into his filthy pleasuring. For chastity and unchastity, soundness of mind and folly, cannot exist together, but they can be distinguished by the intellect when it is kept apart.
[3] I once asked some in the spiritual world who had not reckoned adultery to be a sin whether they knew of a single difference between fornication, having a mistress, the two types of concubine, and the various degrees of adultery. They said that one was like another. I asked whether this applied to marriage too. They looked around to see if any clergymen were present, and when they found there were none, said that marriage was in essence similar. It was different with those who had in their thinking reckoned adultery to be a sin. These said that they had seen differences in the inward ideas at the level of perception, but had not so far taken the trouble to distinguish them and tell them apart. I can declare that the angels of heaven perceive even the slightest difference in these. In order therefore to make it plain that there are two mutually opposite ways of having a concubine, one which destroys conjugial love and another which does not, I shall first describe the harmful type and then the harmless one.
463. 1. The taking of a mistress is of two kinds, which differ greatly from each other, one being in conjunction with the wife, the other in separation from the wife. It is apparent that the taking of a mistress is of two kinds, which differ greatly from each other, and that one kind is to add a rival to the bed and to cohabit jointly and at the same time with her and with the wife; while the second kind is to take as a partner of the bed, after legitimate and just separation from the wife, another woman in her stead.
[2] These two kinds of circumstance in taking a mistress are as disparate from each other as dirty linen is from clean; and this can be seen by people who examine matters keenly and distinctly, but not by people who view them confusedly and indistinctly. Indeed, it can be seen by those who are in a state of conjugial love, but not by those who are caught up in a love of adultery. The first are in the light of day with respect to all the derivative offshoots of love for the opposite sex, but the latter in the darkness of night with respect to them.
However, even those caught up in adultery can see these offshoots and the distinctions between them - not, indeed, in and of themselves, but from hearing others' discussions of them, inasmuch as the same faculty for elevating his intellect exists in the adulterer as in the chaste married partner. It is only that the adulterer, after acknowledging the distinctions on hearing them from others, then wipes them away when he immerses his intellect in his own sordid pleasure. For chasteness and unchasteness, and sanity and insanity, cannot exist together, but may be distinguished by a detached intellect.
[3] In the spiritual world I once asked some people who did not regard adulteries as sins whether they knew of a single distinction between fornication, resorting to a courtesan, the two kinds of circumstance in taking a mistress, and various degrees of adultery. They said that one was the same as another. Then, when I asked them whether this was true of marriage as well, they looked around to see whether any of the clergy were around, and on not seeing any, they said that in itself it was the same. In contrast were people who, in the ideas of their thought, regarded adulteries as sins. These said that they saw, in their interior ideas which were a matter of perception, some distinctions, but that they had not yet made an effort to analyze them and differentiate between them.
This I can declare, that the distinctions are perceived in their smallest particulars by angels in heaven.
Consequently, in order to make clear that there are two kinds of circumstance in taking a mistress antithetical to each other, one of which destroys conjugial love, the other of which does not, therefore we will describe first the injurious kind, and afterwards the other, uninjurious one.
463. 1. There are two types of concubinage, which are very different one that occurs while a man is with a wife, the other when he is separated from his wife. There are two types of concubinage that are very different from each other. One kind is adding a bed mate and living with her, together with a wife, at the same time. The other kind is taking a woman as a bed partner in place of a wife after legitimate and just separation from her. Those who examine the matter closely and carefully can see that these two types of concubinage are far apart, like dirty and clean linen, but those who look in confusion and carelessly cannot see it. Indeed, those who have love of marriage can, but not those who love adultery. [The latter are in the darkness of night about things that derive from] 1the love of the other sex, but the others are in the light of day about them. But even those who are adulterers can see these things and their differences when they hear about them from others - though not on their own - for an adulterer has the same ability to lift up his intellect as a chaste partner does. But after an adulterer has accepted the differences, from others, he still blots them out when he sinks his intellect into his foul pleasures. For chaste and unchaste and healthy and unhealthy cannot be the same, but intellect can tell them apart by separating them.
In the spiritual world I once asked people who did not consider adultery a sin whether they saw any difference between fornication, having a mistress, the two types of concubinage, and the degrees of adultery. They said that one thing is just like another.
I asked if the same goes for marriage, and they looked around to see if any member of the clergy was there, and when there was not, they said that it is the same, per se. The ones who considered adultery a sin, in their thoughts, were different. They said that in their inner ideas, which come from perception, they saw the difference, but so far they had not taken the trouble to separate the acts and tell them apart. This I can affirm - that the angels of heaven can tell the differences down to the smallest detail.
So, to make it clear that there are two opposite types of concubinage - one that destroys the love in marriage and another that does not - the type that is condemned will be described first, and then the other type, which is not condemned.
Footnotes:
1. NCBS Editor's note: The text in brackets is missing from the digital version of the text. We have added the clause so that the thought is complete, but Mr. Gladish's exact wording would probably differ.
463. I. THAT THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF CONCUBINAGE, WHICH GREATLY DIFFER FROM EACH OTHER; ONE CONJOINTLY WITH THE WIFE, THE OTHER IN SEPARATION FROM THE WIFE. There are two kinds of concubinage, which greatly differ from each other. The one kind is the adjoining of an additional partner to the bed and living conjointly and simultaneously with her and the wife. The other kind is the taking of a woman as companion of the bed in place of the wife, after legitimate and just separation from the latter.
[2] That these two kinds of concubinage are as alien to each other as dirty linen to washed, can be seen by those who look at things clearly and distinctly, but not by those who look at things confusedly and indistinctly. Yea, it can be seen by those who are in conjugial love, but not by those who are in the love of adultery. The latter are in night respecting all the derivations of love of the sex, but the former in day. Yet, those who are in adultery can see these derivations and their distinctions, not indeed in themselves from themselves but from others when they hear about them; for with an adulterer, there is the same faculty of elevating the understanding as with a chaste partner. Yet, after acknowledging the distinctions heard from others, the adulterer, when he immerses his understanding in his own filthy pleasures, obliterates them; for the chaste and the unchaste, and the sane and the insane, cannot abide together, though they can be distinguished by the understanding when separated.
[3] Once, in the spiritual world, some spirits who had not reputed adulteries as sins, being asked by me whether they knew a single distinction between fornication, pellicacy, the two kinds of concubinage, and the degrees of adultery, said, "The one is like the other." Asked whether marriage also was like, they looked around to see whether any of the clergy were present, and none being present, they said, "In itself it is." It was different in the case of those who, in the ideas of their thought, had reputed adulteries as sins. These said that in their interior ideas which pertain to perception they saw the differences but had not yet taken pains to discern them and distinguish between them. This I can affirm--that by angels of heaven those distinctions are perceived in their least details. In order therefore that it may be clear that there are two kinds of concubinage opposed to each other, of which the one abolishes conjugial love and the other does not, the damnable kind shall first be described, and afterwards the other which is not hurtful.
463. (i) There are two kinds of concubinage which differ decidedly from each other; one together with the wife, the other apart from the wife. Of the two kinds of concubinage, which differ so decidedly from each other, the one is adding a partner to the bed and living with her at the same time and conjointly with the wife; and the other is taking a woman as a companion of the bed in the wife's place after legitimate and just separation from the latter.
[2] These two sorts of concubinage are as alien from each other as filthy linen is from washed, as those can see who look at things clearly and distinctly, but not those who do so confusedly and indistinctly. Indeed, those who are in marital love can see this, but not those in adulterous love; the latter are in night about all the derivations from sexual love, but the former are in the daylight about them. Still, those who are in adultery can see those derivations and the differences among them, not indeed in themselves or for themselves, but as they hear others present them. For an adulterer has the same capacity of elevating the understanding as a chaste partner has. Having recognized the differences as he hears them from others, however, he obliterates them when he immerses his understanding in his filthy pleasure; not that chaste and unchaste, sane and insane can be together; we are only saying they can be distinguished by the detached understanding.
[3] In the spiritual world I once asked those who did not consider adulteries to be sins whether they knew a single difference between fornication, pellicacy, the two kinds of concubinage and the degrees of adultery. They said that one is like another. On being asked whether marriage is like these others, they glanced around to see if any members of the clergy were present, and seeing there were not, they said that in itself it is similar. Differently those who in the ideas of their thought deemed adulteries to be sins. They said that in their more interior ideas, which are from perception, they saw that there are differences, but had not yet studied to discern and define them. This I can affirm, that the angels of heaven perceive the differences down to minutiae. To make it plain, then, that there are two kinds of concubinage opposite to each other, one which does away with marital love while the other does not, I shall describe the damnable kind first and then the other which is not damning.
463. (1) That there are two kinds of concubinage, which very greatly differ from each other; one conjointly with a wife; the other apart from a wife. There are two kinds of concubinage, which differ very greatly from each other. One kind is the taking of a rival to the bed and living with her at the same time and conjointly with the wife; the other kind the taking of a woman in her place, as companion of the bed, after legitimate and just separation from the wife. They who look at things clearly and distinctly, can see that these two kinds of concubinage are as alien from each other as dirty linen from that which is washed; but by those who view things confusedly and indistinctly it can not be seen. Yea, it can be seen by those who are in conjugial love, but not by those who are in the love of adultery. These are in night respecting all the derivatives of the love of the sex, but those are in the day respecting them. And yet they who are in adultery can see these derivations and their distinctions, not indeed in themselves, of themselves, but when they hear them from others; for an adulterer has a like faculty of elevating the understanding as a chaste married partner. But the adulterer after he has acknowledged the distinctions heard from others, yet obliterates them as soon as he plunges his understanding into his filthy pleasures; for, though the chaste and the unchaste, and the sane and the insane, cannot abide together, yet they can be distinguished by the understanding when separated.
Once, in the spiritual world, some that do not regard adulteries as sin, were asked by me whether they knew any distinction between fornication, pellicacy, the two kinds of concubinage, and the degrees of adultery. They said that one was as the other. And they were asked, whether marriage was so too. They looked about to see whether any of the clergy were present, and as they were not, they said that in themselves they are alike. It was otherwise with those who in the ideas of their thoughts regarded adulteries as sins. They said that in their interior ideas, which are of perception, they saw distinctions, but had not yet studied to discern and distinguish them. This I can affirm, that by the angels of heaven the distinctions are perceived as to their least particulars.
To make it clear then, that there are the two kinds of concubinage, opposite to each other; one of which abolishes conjugial love, and the other does not abolish it, to that end the damnable kind shall first be described, and afterwards the other which is not damnable.
463. I. 1Quod duo Concubinatus genera sint, quae inter se valde differunt, unum conjunctim cum uxore, et alterum sejunctim ab uxore. Quod duo genera Concubinatus sint, quae valde inter se differunt, et quod unum genus sit, succubam adjungere toro, ac conjunctim et simul cum illa et cum uxore vivere; et quod alterum genus sit, post legitimam et justam separationem ab uxore, foeminam loco ejus in consociam lecti adsciscere [patet].
[2] Quod haec duo genera Concubinatus inter se abalienata sint sicut linteum sordidum a lavato, ab illis, qui elimate et distincte intuentur res, potest videri; at ab illis qui confuse et indistincte, non potest; imo ab illis qui in amore conjugiali sunt, potest, non autem ab illis qui in amore adulterii sunt; hi in nocte sunt de cunctis derivationibus amoris sexus, illi autem in die de illis sunt: at usque illi qui in adulterio sunt, possunt derivationes illas et harum discrimina videre, non quidem in se ex se, sed ex aliis dum audiunt illa, nam similis facultas elevandi intellectum est apud adulterum, quae apud castum conjugem; sed adulter, postquam discrimina ex aliis audita 2agnovit, usque obliterat illa, dum intellectum suum immergit spurcae suae voluptati; non enim potest castum et incastum, ac sanum et insanum, una esse, sed possunt a separato intellectu distingui.
[3] Quondam a me in Mundo spirituali illi, qui adulteria non reputaverunt peccata, quaesiti sunt, num sciant unum discrimen inter fornicationem, pellicatum, duo genera concubinatus, ac inter gradus adulterii; dixerunt, quod unum sit sicut alterum; et quaesiti num etiam conjugium, ac circumspexerunt, num aliqui ex Clero adessent, et dum non, dixerunt, quod simile in se sit: aliter illi, qui in ideis cogitationis suae adulteria reputaverunt peccata; hi dixerunt, quod in interioribus ideis, quae sunt perceptionis, viderint discrimina, sed nondum studuerint illa discernere et internoscere: hoc possum asseverare, quod discrimina illa quoad sua minuta, ab angelis coeli percipiantur. Ut ergo pateat, quod duo Genera concubinatus inter se opposita dentur, unum ex quo aboletur amor conjugialis, alterum ex quo non aboletur, ideo damnabile Genus primum describetur, ac postea alterum indemne.
Footnotes:
1. Prima editio: I (absque puncto)
2. Prima editio: audita,