ÉÓÓÎᴪ

ঢ়ᅺ‫ޙ‬᪋‫ᝲޙ۾‬՟ঢ়ᅺ‫ޙ‬᪋‫ޙ۾‬ቼࢊǽቼᴰհᝲǽǽ୫
Sadaharu JO：Lattice Defects of Naphtacene Single Crystals Obtainedby Physical Vapor Transport Technique
Investigated by White-Beam X-ray Topography･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････（ 1 ）誉田南

百合絵：固有名詞や言葉遊びにおける『ドン・キホーテ』邦訳比較･･･････････････････････････････（ 7 ）裕

明：Cohen モデルにおけるとの振る舞いについて ････････････････････････････････････････（ 21 ）៾ǽǽ୳
R. Jeffrey BLAIR：Recollections of a Grunt in Americaʼs Draft Resistance Movement(Part Two: The legal defense) ･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････（ 27 ）ᆅሱഈ᎝（2023 年㧝月〜12 月）･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････（ 75 ）ቼ ࢊ፱ᄻඒ ････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････（ 81 ）²°²´

愛知学院大学教養部

愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

Lattice Defects of Naphtacene Single Crystals Obtainedby Physical Vapor Transport Technique
Investigated by White-Beam X-ray Topography
Sadaharu JO

Lattice defects of naphtacene single crystals obtained by the physical vapor transport technique were
investigated by white-beam X-ray topography, which revealed line patterns along the crystallographic[110] direction as dislocation lines. The estimated dislocation density indicates that the crystals are ofsuperior quality.
Keywords: naphtacene single crystal, physical vapor transport technique, white-beam X-ray
topography, lattice defect, dislocation

1. Introduction
Organic devices have a high potential for sub-nanoscale applications in next-generation flexible
electronics.1–14 The use of the physical vapor transport (PVT) technique to obtain organic single crystals
has been increasing15–29, and such crystals have been focused on for their applications in various typesof device, such as solar cells, field-effect transistors, and light-emitting diodes.30–35 There are highexpectations that the high crystallographic periodicity and ideal electronic structures of these crystals
can be retained because most impurities can be excluded during the physical vapor growth process.
Naphtacene, a chainlike aromatic molecule composed of four benzene rings, is a promising material formany device applications; however, only a few scientific evaluation studies of naphtacene crystal defects
have been performed thus far. X-ray topography is a powerful method of characterizing crystal quality,
because various types of dislocation in Laue spots can be observed directly as topographic images. Crystal
quality is reduced by the included impurities, strain, the disorder of periodicity, and other factors. For the
precise control of electronic characteristics, high-quality single crystals with perfect and ideal periodicityǊǽǽǊ愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

are required. Thus, it is extremely important to investigate and determine suitable conditions for obtaining
high-quality organic single crystals. In this paper, the quality of naphtacene single crystals obtained by the
PVT technique (PVT-naphtacene single crystals) is discussed on the basis of the results of a morphologicalinvestigation and white-beam X-ray topography.

2. Experimental Procedure
The naphtacene single crystals investigated in this study were obtained by the PVT technique. Fig.
1 shows a schematic of our handmade growth furnace, which was composed of a reaction tube, a growthtube, a source boat, a resistance wire, and a band heater. The lengths of the reaction and growth tubes were
500 and 250 mm, and the diameters were 30 and 25 mm, respectively. Tubes of 5 mm diameter were set
along both ends of the reaction tube to enable the flow in and out of a carrier gas that circulates evaporated
source materials by forced convection. The reaction tube was surrounded by a resistance wire at equalintervals for maintaining the desired temperature in the furnace. A band heater was placed at the same
location as the source boat to generate a temperature gradient. To obtain PVT-naphtacene single crystals,
the growth temperature was varied between 220 and 400 °C. Helium gas was employed as the carrier gas
and its flow rate was fixed at 50 ml・min−1. After the crystal growth by the PVT technique, the growth
tube including the PVT-naphtacene single crystals was removed from the furnace. The crystal morphology
was investigated by several types of optical microscopy technique. For crystallographic characterization
based on the Laue method, the white-beam X-ray topography apparatus at SPring-8, Japan Synchrotron
Radiation Research Institute (JASRI), BL28B2 beamline was employed. The apparatus was arranged inaccordance with the forward reflection Laue method. The available X-rays had a wide energy band withan energy higher than 5 keV. The critical energy of the X-rays was 28.9 keV. To reduce the damage tothe crystals caused by X-ray irradiation, a water filter unit of 5 mm path length was attached. The crystal
quality was sufficiently high for conducting white-beam X-ray topography more than ten times. The
camera length was set at 120 mm. The slit dimensions were set at 5×5 mm2, and the X-ray irradiation
time was varied from 10 to 30 s. Specimens were set with the plane with the largest width normal tothe incident X-ray beams, which is the [001] direction. The normal direction corresponds to the [001]direction. To determine the crystallographic indices, specific programs, namely, the Laue Pattern Digitize& Laue Analysis & Result Display Program and the Laue Pattern & StereoGraphic Projection Display
Program, which were originally produced for our study by Norm Engineering Co. Ltd., were employed.
Diffractometry was also performed to precisely investigate the quality of PVT-naphtacene single crystals.
ǊǽǽǊLattice Defects of Naphtacene Single Crystals Obtained by Physical Vapor Transport Technique

Gas Inlet

Gas Outlet

Reaction Tube
Diameter: 30 mm
Length: 500 mm

Source Boat

Crystal Growth Tube
Diameter: 25 mm
Length: 250 mm

Fig. 1 Schematic of growth furnace for obtaining naphtacene single crystals by PVT technique.

3. Results and Discussion
As shown in Fig. 2, the typical morphology of a PVT-

[100]naphtacene single crystal is plateletlike with a large-width
hexagonal plane, which is surrounded by very thin lateral planes.

(100)

The width of a plateletlike crytal is ca. 10 mm and the thickness

(110)

(110)
[010]

is only ca. 500 nm. Many plateletlike crystals possessed planes(001)

with larger widths of 20–30 mm. The crystallographic index of(110)

the hexagonal plane with a large width was characterized to be
the (001) plane by diffractometry, as described in our previous
report25. The narrow lateral planes were formed by {100} and{110} planes.

(110)
(100)

5 mm
Fig. 2 Typical morphology ofnaphtacene single crystal
obtained by PVT technique.

Fig. 3(a) shows a Laue pattern of a PVT-naphtacene single
crystal. Many Laue spots with high intensity can be recognized in the pattern. The large black shadow at thebottom of Fig. 3(a) corresponds to the direct-beam stopper of the X-ray apparatus. The spot arrangement
perfectly agrees with that of the basal (001) pattern for naphtacene with a triclinic system: a =7.90 Å,
b =6.03 Å, c =15.53 Å, α=100.3, β =113.2, and γ =86.336. The configuration of Laue spots indicates the
crystal morphology and suggests that the crystal we obtained includes little strain and possesses longrange coherent periodic structures, because even the Laue spots with high indices such as 623 and 432
spots indicate that the crystal configuration is still maintained with little elongation. As described in ourprevious report25, large PVT-naphtacene single crystals are of excellent quality; however, the small PVTnaphtacene single crystals are of inferior quality. It appears that the small PVT-naphtacene single crystals
cannot grow further because of the inclusion of strain. Figs. 3(b) and (c) show enlarged topographs of the
324 and 230 reflections, respectively, which were recorded with the incident white beam parallel to theǊǽǽǊ愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

[001] direction. Both topographs substantially reflect the crystal configuration. As observed in Fig.3 (b),several line patterns with dark contrast are nearly parallel to the [110] direction, which are indicated by
two black arrows. This experimental result excellently agrees with the report of Pflaum et al. indicatingthat the formation of side edges of grooves occurs along the [110] direction37; they, however, obtained
their naphtacene crystals by the solution technique. On the basis of the theory of the invisible criterion
for the dislocation contrast, the dislocations in images are assumed to be invisible at g•b=0. Here, g is thediffraction vector and b is the Burgers vector. When assuming that the origin of a line pattern is a screw
dislocation, line patterns should be invisible or visible with weak contrast in Fig. 3(b); on the other hand,when assuming that the origin of a line pattern is an edge dislocation, line patterns should be invisible orvisible with weak contrast in Fig. 3(c). Actually, the line patterns are visible, when they are normal to thediffraction vector of g324, as seen in Fig. 3(b); however, the line patterns are invisible when they are parallelto the diffraction vector of g230, as seen in Fig. 3(c). Thus, the line patterns seen in Fig. 3(b) are possibly
the dislocation lines formed owing to the edge dislocation. The expected orientation of the Burgers vectorof the edge dislocation is in the [320] or [001] direction. Thus, this result indicates that crystallographic
slip planes form easily along the [320] or [001] direction. Electronic carriers can possibly overcome theenergy barrier against the slip planes. Moreover, the dislocation density was estimated to be ca. 1.0×103
cm-2. Koizumi et al. described that organic crystals with ordered dislocation densities of 102–103 cm-2 areof high quality38; hence, we consider that our PVT- naphtacene single crystals investigated in this study
are of high quality.
142

g230

263

g324

341

163

(100)

131

(110)
(001)
[100]

110

021

301

251 371
141

311

233

201

(a)

g324

623

(110)
(110)

(100)
(100)

(001)
(001)
[100]
[100]

(110)
(110)

(110)
(110)

[010]

(110)
(110)

432

(b)

[010]
[010]

(c)

Fig. 3 (a) Laue pattern of naphtacene single crystal grown by PVT technique. The incident X-ray beam wasparallel to the [001] direction. (b) and (c) show enlarged topographs of the 324 and 230 reflections,
respectively.

4. Conclusion
Lattice defects of PVT-naphtacene single crystals were investigated by white-beam X-ray topography.
ǊǽǽǊLattice Defects of Naphtacene Single Crystals Obtained by Physical Vapor Transport Technique

The dislocation lines observed parallel to the crystallographic [110] direction originated from edge
dislocations, as confirmed on the basis of the theory of the invisible criterion for the dislocation contrast.
The estimated dislocation density indicates that the crystals are of superior quality.

Acknowledgements
This research was partially supported by the Nanotechnology Network Japan Program (Nanonet) andNanotechnology Platform Japan Program (Nanotech Japan), The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan (Proposal Nos. 10–14 (2010TTI), 11–01 (2011TTI), 2012-F12TT-0006 (2012TTI), and 2014-F14-TT-0014 (2014TTI)). The synchrotron radiation experiments were
performed at SPring-8 with the approval of JASRI (Proposal Nos. 2003B0068, 2004A0212, 2005B0363,
and 2006B1278; BL28B2). The author would like to thank Professor M. Yoshimura (Toyota Technol.
Inst.), Dr. S. Suzuki (JAEA), Dr. M. Ataka (AIST), Professor K. Izumi (Kyoto Univ.), Dr. K. Kajiwara(JASRI), Dr. S. Maki (Okayama Univ. Sci.), Professor T. Kohzuma (Ibaraki Univ.), and Professor M.
Takenaga (Tokyo Univ. Sci., Yamaguchi) for cooperation in experiments and fruitful discussions.

References
1

N. Alharbi, J. Hart, and J. N. O’Shea: Surf. Sci. 735 (2023) 122323.

2

S. J. Konezny, M. N. Bussac, and L. Zuppironi: Phys. Rev. B 81 (2010) 045313.

3

J. C. Bijleveld, R. A. M. Verstrijden, M. M. Wienk, and R. A. J. Janssen: Appl. Phys. Lett. 97 (2010) 073304.

4J. Park, H. M. Kim, D. W. Kim, and J. S. Choi: Appl. Phys. Lett. 97 (2010) 093301.

5

M. Wagner, F. Calcinelli, A. Jeindl, M. Schmid, O. T. Hofmann, and U. Diebold: Surf. Sci. 722 (2022) 122065.

6

A. Winkler: Surf. Sci. 643 (2016) 124.

7

B.-N. Park, S. Seo, and P. G. Evans: J. Phys. D, Appl. Phys. 40 (2007) 3506.

8

A. K. Mukherjee, A. K. Thakur, W. Takashima, and K. Kaneto: J. Phys. D, Appl. Phys. 40 (2007) 1789.

9

E. Y. Kataev, L. Fromm, Q. Tariq, D. Wechsler, F. J. Williams, N. Tsud, S. Franchi, H.-P. Steinruck, A. Gorling, and O.
Lytken: Surf. Sci. 720 (2022) 122007.

10

A. Venalainen, K. Meinander, M. Raisanen, V. Tuboltsev, and J. Raisanen: Surf. Sci. 677 (2018) 68.

11

T. Manaka, E. Lim, R. Tamura, and M. Iwamoto: Thin Solid Films 499 (2006) 386.

12

Z. V. Vardeny, A. J. Heeger, and A. Dodabalapur: Synth. Met. 148 (2005) 1.

13

J. Brox, B. Adhikari, M. Shaker, M. Ruppel, N. Jux, H. Maebach, S. Jaekal, and H.-P. Steinruck: Surf. Sci. 720 (2022)

122047.
14

J. G. Park, G. T. Kim, J. H. Park, H. Y. Yu, G. McIntosh, V. Krstic, S. H. Jhang, B. Kim, S. H. Lee, S. W. Lee, M.
Burghard, S. Roth, and Y. W. Park: Thin Solid Films 393 (2001) 161.

15

N. Karl: J. Cryst. Growth 99 (1990) 449.

ǊǽǽǊ

愛知学院大学

16

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

G. Hollowitz, B. Bachet, A. Yassar, P. Lang, F. Demanze, J.-L. Fave, and F. Garnier: Chem. Mater. 7 (1995) 1337.

17

R. A. Laudise, Ch. Kloc, P. G. Simpkins, and T. Siegrist: J. Cryst. Growth 187 (1998) 449.

18

Ch. Kloc, P. G. Simpkins, T. Siegrist, and R. A Laudise: J. Cryst. Growth 182 (1997) 416.

19

S. Jo and M. Takenaga: J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 258 (2010) 0120171.

20

S. Jo and M. Takenaga: Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 49 (2010) 078002.

21

S. Jo, K. Okamoto, and M. Takenaga: Appl. Surf. Sci. 256 (2010) 1969.

22

S. Jo, N. Takada, and M. Takenaga: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 82 (2013) 135001.

23

S. Jo, K. Kajiwara, and M. Takenaga: Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 53 (2014) 115506.

24

S. Jo, S. Suzuki, and M. Yoshimura: Thin Solid Films 554 (2014) 154.

25

S. Jo, N. Takada, and M. Takenaga: Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 50 (2011) 065501.

26

S. Jo, H.Yoshikawa, A. Fujii, and M. Takenaga: Synth. Met. 150 (2005) 223.

27

N. Yoshimoto, T. Kakudake, K. Aosawa, and Y. Saito: J. Cryst. Growth 310 (2008) 1725.

28

R.-F. Xiao: J. Cryst. Growth 174 (1997) 821.

29

F. Pan, Ch. Bosshard, M. S. Wong, C. Serbutoviez, S. Follonier, P. Gunter, and K. Schenk: J. Cryst. Growth 165 (1996)
273.

30

D. Paoloni and A. Ruocco: Surf. Sci. 735 (2023) 122322.

31

X. Zeng, D. Zhang, L. Duan, L. Wang, G. Dong, and Y. Qiu: Appl. Surf. Sci. 253 (2007) 6047.

32

W. E. Carswell, M. I. Zugrav, F. C. Wessling, and G. Haulenbeek: J. Cryst. Growth 211 (2000) 428.

33

M. D. J.-Sanchez, N. S.-Abad, N. Nicoara, and J. M. G.-Rodriguez: Surf. Sci. 710 (2021) 121848.

34

J. Knudsen, J. N. Andersen, and J. Schnadt: Surf. Sci. 646 (2016) 160.

35

K. Gotz, I. Stollberg, A. Prihoda, F. Bertram, E. Metwalli, and T. Unruh: Surf. Sci. 721 (2022) 122066.

36

J. E. Northrup, M. L. Tiago, and S. G. Louie: Phys. Rev. B 66 (2002) 121404.

37

J. Pflaum, J. Niemax, and A. K. Tripathi: Chem. Phys. 325 (2006) 152.

38

H. Koizumi, M. Tachibana, K. Kojima, and I. Yoshizaki: Space Utiliz. Res. 21 (2005) 98.

ǊǽǽǊ固有名詞や言葉遊びにおける『ドン・キホーテ』邦訳比較

誉

田

百合絵

本稿は、拙論文「日本における『ドン・キホーテ』の紹介と受容の様相」の一部分である「Ⅰ‒2.

翻訳史」を一部修正し簡潔にまとめたうえで、『才知溢れる郷士

ドン・キホーテ・デ・ラ・マンチャ』を、英語からの重訳時代の作品とスペイン語からの直訳である作品の違いという視点から比較したものである。今回は特に、①名前や地名といった固有名詞の表記、②単位の表記、③言葉遊びやそのほかスペインの文化的背景の知識が肝要となる表現に分けて分析を試みる。
キーワード：重訳、直訳、底本、註釈

ƋᴫȊʓʽˁɷʥ˂ʐȋᤳᜭɁධխ
まず、簡単に日本における『ドン・キホーテ』翻訳の歴史をまとめる。ここでは便宜上、明治から第二次世界大戦時までを第一期、第二次世界大戦後から現在までを第二期として簡単にまとめる。これは第二次世界大戦の時期を境に翻訳の特徴が大きく変わったため、この時点で分割して分析するのがよいと判断したからである。

Ƌ‒®ǽቼˢఙᴥ஥ผᵻቼ̝ඒ˰ႜ‫੉۾‬ఙᴦ『ドン・キホーテ』翻訳の黎明期の主要な作品を紹介する。この時期にはまだ、原文から直接日本語に翻訳できるような熟練したスペイン文学研究者がいなかったため、英語やフランス
語などからの重訳しか出版されていなかった。なお、明治18 年に刊行された『毆州情史 玉薔薇』は『ドン・キホーテ』の翻訳だとする資料があるが、実際は同じ作者の別の著作『模範小ǊǽǽǊ愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71 巻第㧟号説集』の中の一編を翻訳したものであるため、ここでは触れないでおく。
ど ん き おう㧝．ワ・シ編訳「鈍喜翁奇行傳」『教育雑誌』贊育社、1887 年
ワ・シこと渡辺修二郎氏による、『ドン・キホーテ』初の邦訳書である。英語版からの重訳で、前編52 章のうち 20章までの内容の大筋をまとめた抄訳となっている。『教育雑誌』という雑誌に㧤回にわたって連載されており、渡辺は雑誌の主筆を担当していた。
どん き おう㧞．松居松葉訳『鈍機翁冒険譚』（上下）、博文館、1893 年
前編のみを 43の章に分けて綴った抄訳版である。
㧟．雄島濱太郎訳『世界奇書ドンキホーテー』育成会、1902 年

前編㧢章までの抄訳である。底本については「そへがき」で、イギリスで最良の翻訳本が出版されたと聞いているがいまだに手に入らないので「主にヂョーヂ

マンロー出版の英譯とラオトレツヂのとより之を重譯しぬ」とし、機会があれば、修正を加えるつもりだと述べている。
㧠．近藤敏三郎訳『新訳

ドン・キホーテ物語』精華堂書店、1910 年

原作前後編の抄訳。底本は手近にあった Carvin Dill Wilson の抄訳本と Book for the Bairns、
そして Sixpennies 中の抄訳を参照しながら訳したと述べている。
㧡．佐々木邦訳『全訳ドン・キホーテ』東亜堂書房、1914 年
タイトルに「全訳」と銘打ってあるが、実際は前後編 126 章の中から主なエピソードを抜き
この ほん やく出し30章にまとめた抄訳本である。「はしがき」に「此 飜 譯 は Jones, -The Adventures of Don
Quixote de la Mancha を骨子とし、Shelton, - The History of the Valorous & Witty Knight- Errant Don
Quixote of the Mancha を参照して、成るべく日本の読者に分かり易いやうにと心掛けて書いたどんなものである。若し是によって有名なドン・キホーテの什麼ものかが紹介出来れば甚だ幸ひと思
ふ」（佐々木、「はしがき」、p. 7）という訳者のコメントが添えられている。
㧢．島村抱月・片上伸共訳『ドン・キホーテ』（上下二巻）、植竹書院、1915 年
初めての完訳本である。イギリスのオームズビーの訳が最も質がよいとして、これを底本とし、同国のジャーヴァス、シェルトン、フランスのヴィアルドー、ドイツのテイークを参照しつつ翻訳作業を進めた。
㧣．森田草平訳『ドン・キホーテ』（上下）、国民文庫刊行会、1927‒1928 年
㧞番目に出版された完訳版である。Motteux の英訳を底本にしているが、これは「この書の
えいやく

ひろ

よ

英譯は数十種出てゐるが、最も凡く英國に行はれてゐるもので、能く原作者の精神を伝へた譯
本として定評のあるものを取つたに過ぎない」（上巻「譯者の序」、p. 7）からであると、上巻巻頭の「譯者の序」の部分で述べている。
ǊǽǽǊ固有名詞や言葉遊びにおける『ドン・キホーテ』邦訳比較

㧤．矢口達監修『ドン・キホーテ』潮文閣、1928 年
前編の抄訳で、『カラマーゾフの兄弟』との合本となっている。セルバンテス作品の翻訳経験がある樋口正義は矢口の翻訳内容を検討した結果、「訳文は片上伸の翻訳に酷似しているので、おそらくこれは片上訳を一部改変もしくは省略して、面白そうな部分だけを抜き出し、さらに難しい表現をやさしく書き直したものだと推測される」と評している1）。

Ƌ‒®ǽቼ̝ఙᴥቼ̝ඒ˰ႜ‫ऻ੉۾‬ᵻး٣ᴦ
第二次世界大戦後、スペインの言語や文化に対する専門的な知識を持った訳者があらわれ、その当時の最新の研究を反映させた邦訳版を次々と発表していった。その内容も基本的に完訳ばかりとなっている。その一方で、ここでは触れないが、青少年向けに簡潔にまとめられた抄
訳版や、子ども向けの絵本の出版なども相次いで出版されている。

㧝．永田寛定・高橋正武訳『ドン・キホーテ』（正篇・続篇㧢冊）、岩波文庫、1948‒1977 年
初めてスペイン語から直接訳された完訳本である。正篇㧟冊と続篇の㧞冊目までを訳した。
その後仕事は高橋に受け継がれ、1977 年にようやく『ドン・キホーテ』翻訳事業が完遂した。
ロドリーゲス・マリンの訳を底本としている。
㧞．進藤遠訳『英邁なる貴紳ラ・マンチャのドン・キホーテ』（前篇）、河出書房、1951 年
1949年に思索社から前篇27章までの部分訳を、1951 年には前篇52 章の全訳を河出書房から出版している。後篇は訳されていない。
㧟．会田由訳『才智あふるる郷士ドン・キホーテ・デ・ラ・マンチャ』（前篇）、河出書房新社、1958 年、（後篇）筑摩書房、1962 年
永田の方が先に翻訳作業を開始していたが、彼は作業の半ばで亡くなり、残りの仕事は弟子である高橋に引き継がれたので、事実上は会田のほうが先に前篇、後篇を通した完訳を達成したことになる。原本のほかに英訳、仏訳、邦訳では片上訳と永田訳を参照していた。
㧠．堀口大學訳『奇抜な郷士ドン・キホーテ・デ・ラ・マンチャ』（正編）、講談社、1976 年
正編のみの翻訳である。仏訳ではガリマール書店から 1956 年に出版されたプレアード版とミオマンドル訳のストック版を参照し、原文はフランシスコ・ロドリゲス・マリン校注のエス
パサ‒カルペ社版を使用したとある（「解説」、pp. 532‒533）。
㧡．牛島信明訳『機知に富んだ郷士ドン・キホーテ・デ・ラ・マンチャ』
（前後篇）
、岩波書
店、2001 年
底本は Vicente Gaos 版を用いている。なお、その際に参照したのは Martín de Riquer, Planeta,
1990; L. A. Murillo, Castalia, 1978; Juan Bautista Avalle-Arce, Alhambra, 1979; Instituto Cervantes,
ǊǽǽǊ愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71 巻第㧟号dirigida por Francisco Rico, Crítica,1998などであると述べている。これに加えて、ときには英訳、仏訳、そして邦訳である永田・高橋訳、そして会田訳も参考にしたという。
㧢．荻内勝之訳、堀越千秋絵『ドン・キホーテ』（前後篇）、新潮社、2005 年
本文には「後書き」も「解説」もなく、翻訳作業に関する記述が添えられていない。しかし、作品の出版に際して荻内は毎日新聞のインタビューにて『ドン・キホーテ』を訳しきった
感想を述べ、その文体の特徴を説明している。以下、記事を一部引用する。

歌舞伎役者の家系の血か、遍歴好きの学者で、もちろん芝居も大好き。「だから僕の文体は
2）。
芝居のようです。声を出して読みたくなるような語りにしたつもりです」

㧣．岩根圀和訳『新訳ドン・キホーテ』（前後編）、彩流社、2012 年
最新の翻訳本である。底本には Francisco Rico, Florencio Sevilla Arroyo y Antonio Rey Hazas お
よび Luis Andrés Murillo のものを使用している3）。訳者は「あとがき」で既存の邦訳版の特徴を比較している。趣旨をまとめると、永田訳はかなり昔の訳であるためさすがに古く、堀口訳
はフランス語訳を参照しながら翻訳している影響があり、会田訳は新しく読みやすい、牛島訳
はカタカナ語を取り入れた点で新鮮であり、荻内訳は著者の語り口を重要視して訳している、ということだ。最後に、総括してどの作品も特徴のある文体で貴重な労作と評している。

ƌᴫᐊᜭю߁Ɂ෗ᢎ
この節では、前節で挙げた翻訳本のうち、完訳されたものの中からいくつかの版を選び、本文を比較して時代ごとの翻訳の特徴を明らかにする。今回は、英語からの重訳で、底本がはっ（1915年）、と森田訳（1927 年）、スペイン語からの直訳は永田きりと提示されている片上訳4）訳（1948年）、牛島訳（2001 年）、荻内訳（2005 年）、そして岩根訳（2012 年）を扱う。なお、
原文は1941年の Marín 版を用いる。また、英語版の『ドン・キホーテ』は片上が底本にしたという Ormsby 版と、森田が底本にしたという Motteux 版を参考にする。

ƌ‒®ǽِ఍ջ᜽Ɂ෗ᢎ
はじめに、主だった登場人物の名前を比較してみる。
（表㧝）は、それぞれの訳者の訳語一覧表である。なお、永田訳以降はほぼ同じ表記なので掲載を省略する。

ǊǽǽǊ


固有名詞や言葉遊びにおける『ドン・キホーテ』邦訳比較

表㧝
Marín

OrmsbyMotteux

片上

Don Quijotede la Mancha

Don Quixoteof la Mancha

Don Quixote
de la Mancha

ラ・マンチャのド ラ・マンチャのド ドン・キホーテ・ン・キホーテン・キホーテデ・ラ・マンチャ

Sancho Panza

Sancho Panza

Sancho Panza

サンチョー・パン サンチョー・パン サンチョ・パンサ
ザサ

Aldonza
Lorenzo

Aldonza
Lorenzo

Aldonza
Lorenzo

アルドンザ・ロレ アルドンザ・ロレ アルドンサ・ロレ
ンゾォ
ンゾー
ンソ

Dulcinea delTobosoDulcinea delTobosoDulcinea, withaddition of delTobosoドゥルシネア・ ※デル・トボソォ

ドゥルシネーア・デル・トボーソ

el Curathe curate

the curate

牧師補

司祭、和尚

森田

牧師

永田

※かくて彼は最後に彼女をダルシネアと呼ぶ事に定め、苗字は彼女が生まれた地名から取ってデル・トボソーとした。

今回比較対象としたいずれの作品も、最も早く翻訳されたワ・シ（渡辺）版『鈍喜翁奇行傳』の時期に比べると、原語であるスペイン語の発音にかなり寄せた表記で書かれているが、細かいところで重訳と直訳のあいだに差異があることがわかる。例えばサンチョの苗字 “Panza”
や、騎士の想い姫であるドゥルシネーアのモデルになった女性 “Aldonza Lorenzo” に用いられている㨦の音は、片上版では一般的なスペイン語の読みかたとは違ってザ行の表記になってい
るし、さらに言えば “Lorenzo” や、ドゥルシネーアの名前の一部である “Toboso” は、「アルド
ンザ・ロレンゾォ」や「ドゥルシネア・デル・トボソォ」といったように、本来のアクセント
位置ではないところにアクセントがあるかのような表記がなされている。これは英語式の読みかたに倣った表記であろう。一方で、永田以降の翻訳ではほぼ統一して「アルドンサ・ロレン
ソ」「ドゥルシネーア・デル・トボーソ」といったスペイン語の発音に近い表記で一致している。
登場人物の訳出の違いで顕著なのは、ドン・キホーテの同郷の友人である “el Cura” の訳だ。
永田以降の直訳版では「司祭」や「神父」と訳されることが多い5）。英語版では Motteux 訳とOrmsby 訳のいずれも “the curate” となっているが、これを片上は「牧師補」、森田は「牧師」としている。“Curate” という単語を辞典で調べると、確かにイギリス国教会の役職である「牧師補」と言う単語が出てくるが、その他にカトリック派の「助任司祭」を指すともある。よって、重訳と直訳のいずれの版でも “curate” という単語自体の翻訳に齟齬はないのだが、スペインでは、特に『ドン・キホーテ』が執筆された 17 世紀のスペインでは、カトリックの勢力がプロテスタントよりもはるかに強大であった。そういった文化的背景をふまえると、「牧師」という言葉を使うのは適切であるとはいえない。なお、箇所によっては永田は「和尚」、岩根ǊǽǽǊ愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71 巻第㧟号は「住職」と訳していることもあるが、これは宗教の認識の齟齬というよりは、読者である日本人への馴染みやすさを優先し、あえて仏教用語を用いているのであろう。
以上は、スペイン語そのものに対する知識や、スペインという国への知識の有無によって差異が生じている箇所の指摘であった。しかし、今回比較をしているいずれの版でも、小説のタイトルであり、かつ主人公の名前にもなっている “Don Quijote” だけは、いずれの時代も「ドン・キホーテ」とより原語に近い表記となっている。特に、Ormsby や Motteux の英語版では
㨖が㨤になっているにもかかわらず、それを底本としているはずの片上訳や森田訳は英語風の発音表記を避け、一貫して「ドン・キホーテ」と書いている。スペイン語に明るい翻訳者や研究者がまだ日本にほとんどいなかった時代でさえ、『ドン・キホーテ』という小説のタイトル
だけは（内容はともかくとも）早い段階から広く認識されていた証左といえよう。一方「デ・ラ・マンチャ」の部分だが、騎士や貴族といった身分にある人物は出身地を名前に添えて名乗
り、みずからの立ち居振る舞いによって地元の名声を高めるという慣習がある。実際、ドン・キホーテがあこがれるスペインの著名な騎士道物語の主人公アマディス・デ・ガウラも、同様の理由でデ・ガウラを名乗っているのだという記述が『ドン・キホーテ』本文にある。また、想い姫のドゥルシネア・デル・トボーソの名前を考案する際にも同様に、いかにも貴婦人らしさを出すために、姫のモデルとなった女性アルドンサの故郷であるトボーソ村の名前を冠した。そういった経緯から、主人公もそれに乗っ取って「デ・ラ・マンチャ」と名乗るのだが、英語訳ではこの “de” を “of ” と訳出する場合が多く、これに倣って片上や森田の重訳も「ラ・マンチャのドン・キホーテ」と訳している。一方、永田以降の訳者は名前をひとつながりの固有名詞としてそのまま訳しているという点で両者に違いがみられる。なお、この「ラ・マンチャ」という地域は「イスパニヤで最も蒙昧な地方で、住民は頑迷なわからずやとされていたから、ドン・キホーテと名乗る騎士どのには、デ・ラ・マンチャよりも恰好な苗字はまずないのである。」（永田、pp. 270‒271）、「ラ・マンチャはスペインで最も荒涼とした地方で、伝統的な騎士道物語の、城などからなる華麗で貴族的なロマンスの舞台とはまさに好対照である。
」（牛島、p. 417）などと解説されるような土地として一般的に認識されており、直訳作品ではこの注釈が入ることによって、老騎士がいかに滑稽で荒唐無稽なことをしでかしているのかがより読者に伝わりやすくなっている。
次に、作中に登場する騎士道小説の名前や地名を比較していきたい。こちらもそれぞれの訳者の訳語を、（表㧞）の一覧にまとめた。

ǊǽǽǊ


固有名詞や言葉遊びにおける『ドン・キホーテ』邦訳比較

表㧞
Marín

OrmsbyMotteux

片上

森田

永田

Amadís deGaulaAmadis ofGaul

Amadis deGaul

ゴールのアマディス

アマディス・
デ・ゴール

アマディース・デ・ガウラ

Don Olivantede Laura

Don Olivantede Laura

Olivante deLaura

ドン・オリヷ ン オリヷンテ・デ・ ドン・オリバ ン
テ・デ・ラウララウラ
テ・デ・ラウラ

Palmerín de
Inglaterra

Palmerin ofEnglandPalmerin ofEngland

イギリス國のパ 英吉利のパルメ パルメリン・デ・ルメリン
リンインガラテルラ

Alejandro

Alexander

Alexander

アレキサンダア アレキサンダア アレクサンドロス

Córdoba

Cordova

Cordovaコルドーヷ

コルドーヴァ

コルドバ

前の項目でも述べたが、騎士の名前をタイトルに冠している小説の場合、英語からの重訳の際にもっとも顕著に影響を受けるのは、固有名詞中にある接続詞の解釈であろう。英語版で接続詞 “de” をそのまま残すか、それとも “of ” と訳してしまうのかが、日本語訳に影響を与えている。例えば、前編第㧢章、ニコラス親方や司祭がドン・キホーテを狂気から救いだすため彼の蔵書を一斉処分してしまう場面では、実在する騎士道物語のタイトルが多数登場する。そのなかのひとつで、Marín 版では “Amadís de Gaula” と書かれている騎士道小説を、永田や牛島はそのまま『アマディス・デ・ガウラ』のように、ひとつの固有名詞として原語版に書かれているまま日本語に置き換えている。ところが、これを “Amadis of Gaul” と英語風に訳している
Ormsby 訳を底本としている片上版では、それに倣って『ゴールのアマディス』と表記されている。その一方で、同章に登場する “Don Olivante de Laura” という作品は、英語版もスペイン語版とまったく同じ表記で書かれており、これにともなって片上版も『ドン・オリヷンテ・
デ・ラウラ』としている。なお、いくつか本文中の作品を比較して見てみると、傾向として、『アマディス・デ・ガウラ』のように『（地名）の誰々』という場合には “de” を “of ” と訳し、
『ドン・オリヷンテ・デ・ラウラ』のように『（人名）の誰々』という場合にはそのまま “de”と訳出しているように見受けられる。
また、スペインの地名も、底本で英語風の表記に訳されているものは重訳でもその表記に倣った発音で訳出されている。例えば、コルドバはスペイン語では “Córdoba” と書くのが一般的であるが、Ormsby や Motteux の英語版では “Cordova” と書かれているために、片上版でも「コルドーヷ」となっている。こうなるとアクセントの位置も原文とは違ってきてしまい、結果的に『ドン・キホーテ』を読んでいるにもかかわらず、読者は訳本からスペインらしさを味
わいづらくなってしまっている。
なお、アレクサンドロス大王といったスペイン語由来ではない人名、地名に関しては訳によって多少の差異がみられる。Marín 版ではスペイン語風の名前に置き換えて “Alejandro” とǊǽǽǊ愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71 巻第㧟号

表記されているが、Ormsby や Motteux は英語風の名前に置き換えて “Alexander” とし、片上や森田もそのまま「アレキサンダア」としている一方で、永田以降の直訳では日本で一般的に認知されている「アレクサンドロス大王」という呼びかたで統一されている。

ƌ‒®ǽԨͱɁ෗ᢎ
次に、作中で登場する単位の表現についていくつか抜き出して比較する。まずは Marín による原語版で p. 53に登場する “hanegas”（現代では “fanega” と表記）についてみてみよう。物語の主人公ドン・キホーテは、騎士道物語を愛するあまりに所持していた土地の大部分を手放し、本の購入に充てていたという趣旨の文中に登場する単位である。牛島訳『ドン・キホー
テ』には、巻末の訳注ページ冒頭に主だった単位の解説がまとめて載っており、そこでファネーガについて「穀量の単位で、五五．五リットル。また、一ファネーガの小麦をまくことのできる面積」と明確に解説している（p. 411）
。これを、片上は底本にしている Ormsby 訳に則って「エーカー」と英米風の単位で訳出しており、さらに文中に「一エーカーは四段十八町
歩に當る」と注を入れている（p. 8）。Motteux も Ormsby 同様に “acres” と英米風に訳しなおしているが、森田は “acres” をそのまま訳さずに「多くの田畑」と曖昧な表現にしている（p. 2）。
直訳版を見てみると、永田は「何町という畑地」（p. 109）、荻内は「幾町歩も」（p. 38）と、
スペイン語の単位を使わず日本語の表現に置き換えている。他方、岩根は「幾ファネーガも」（p. 50）と表現をそのまま使い、単語の解説はしない代わりに、同ページ末の脚注で「例えば牛肉半キロが八マラベディ…中略…の一五五六年頃、騎士道物語『パルメリン』の価値は八十マラベディ…」（p. 51）と、物価の具体例を出すことでドン・キホーテがいかに騎士道物語にのめりこんでいたかを示している。なおマラベディは後の節で言及するレアルと同時期に使用されていた通貨の単位である。
次に長さの単位レグア（legua）である。前編第㧤章の、ドン・キホーテが風車を見て巨人と勘違いする場面で、風車の羽（ドン・キホーテにとっては巨人の腕）の長さを誇張して表現する台詞で用いられている。牛島訳では「腕の長さ二レグア」（p. 142）と訳していて、巻末の訳注で㧝レグアを「約五・六キロメートル」と説明している（p. 411）。英語版を見ると、片上訳の底本である Ormsby 訳では “league” と訳している（p. 18）。“legua” もしくは “league” はスペインに限らずヨーロッパで広く使われている単位であり、イギリスでもその長さをイメージしやすいであろう。片上は Ormsby 訳に忠実に、注つきで「二リーグ（一リーグは約一里八丁）」としている。一里は約4km 弱、一丁は約 110m なので、片上の解説では㧝リーグ（レグア）は約4.88km 弱という計算になる。やや牛島の解説よりも短いが、大まかに一致していると言っていいだろう。森田も片上と同様に、注つきで「二リーグ［一リーグは約一里八丁］」
ǊǽǽǊ固有名詞や言葉遊びにおける『ドン・キホーテ』邦訳比較と表現している（p. 62）。
永田による直訳は、「二里」と端的に日本風の表現に訳しなおしている（p. 174）。先ほど述べたように一里は約4km なので、既に述べた三者よりもさらに短い距離となってしまうが、文脈的に言ってここでは正確な数字は必要ないので、おおよその規模が伝われば充分であろう。荻内も「里」と表現しているが、「二里」ではなく「三里」と数字を変えて訳すことで4kmą3=12km と計算を近づけている（p. 101）。岩根は「十キロ以上」と、読者にとって一番
馴染みの深い単位であるキロに変えている（p. 89）。

ƌ‒®ǽʰ˂ʬɬɁ᚜းɁ෗ᢎ
次に、セルバンテスの文章の特徴でもあるユーモア、言葉遊びについて言及する。前編第㧝章の、ドン・キホーテが遍歴の旅への出立にあたり連れていく痩せ馬の特徴を描写している場
面の一部を引用する。Marín 訳の “y aunque tenía más cuartos que un real” の部分である（p. 57）。
Marín は同ページ下部にて “Cervantes juega aquí de la voz cuartos, en sus dos acepciones de monedasy cierta enfermedad de las caballerías.” と注をつけているので、合わせて比較したい。まずは比較
レアール

クワルトス

クワルトス

基準となる永田訳だが、「十銭をくずした 小 銭 よりも多い 爪 割 れがあり、…」となっている（p. 114）。そして、巻末に注釈として以下の文章が記載されている。
レアールは現ペセータ6）…中略…の四分の一だが、…中略…クワルトも昔の銅貨で、レアー
ルの四分の一の意義だが、一ばんに、銅貨という意味、または銭という意味に使われる。セルバンテスはこのクワルトを馬の病気の爪割─やはりクワルトという─にかけたのである。
（永田、p. 270）

原文の言葉の洒落をほぼ完全に回収し、解説しているのがわかる。同様に、牛島も注こそつけていないがほぼ永田と同義の解釈をしている。
では、重訳である片上訳はどうだろう。片上は、文中に注を挟みつつ「それはレーェル銀貨（凡そ二十五銭に當る）を割つた小銭よりも多い足の蹄裂（蹄裂の言語 quarte は一種の馬の病
気なる蹄裂を意味すると同時に、スペインの廢貨 ral 銀の八分の一小銅貨をも意味し、原文では言葉の洒落となつてゐる）を有ち」としている（p. 11）。底本である Ormsby 訳を見ると、本文は “with more quartos than a real”（p. 2）、同ページ下部の注で “An untranslatable pun on theword quarto, which means a sand crack in a horse’s hoof, as well as the coin equal to one-eighth of thereal.” としており、大部分が底本に忠実に訳されている。しかし、Ormsby が “real” としたとこ
ろを片上は “ral” と表記しているほか、「㧠分の㧝」という単語に由来する “cuarto” を “oneǊǽǽǊ


愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71 巻第㧟号eighth”、「八分の一」と誤訳してしまっている。また、レアルの価値を片上が作品を出版した
当時の相場に置き換えて「二十五銭」と解説している。既に論じた「ファネーガ」の件でもいえるが、片上は当時の日本人にとって馴染みの深い単位に置き換えて解説することで、読者が『ドン・キホーテ』の世界をよりイメージしやすくなる工夫をしている。
もう一方の重訳である森田訳だが、“whose bones stuck out like the corner s of a Spanish real”（p.
18）と訳した Motteux に倣い、文中に注を挟みつつ「骨は西班牙のレアル［昔の銀貨］の角のやうに突つ張つてゐた。」（p. 6）としている。レアルという表記は片上のそれよりもスペイン語に近く、また注でレアルが旧貨幣であることに言及してはいるものの、原語の “cuarto” が生かされていないどころか、意味も変わってしまっていて、原文の言葉遊びは読者には伝わらない。
近年の翻訳を見てみると、荻内は「蹄などは小銭を並べたように皹割れた」（p. 42）、岩根は「蹄はボロ壁よりもひび割れ」（p. 52）としており、両者とも原語の言葉遊びの要素は省略しているほか、注もない。さらに言えば、言葉遊びの要素を省いたことによってかなり意訳に近い形になっている。
次に、ドン・キホーテの友人である司祭についての一文から引用する。Marín による原語版
ではこの司祭について “que era hombre docto, graduado en Sigüenza（シグエンサ大学を卒業した知識人）” という紹介文がある（p. 55）。原語版ではこれ以上の解説はないのだが、永田訳では
この「シグエンサ大学」に注がついており、「シグエンサ大学はイスパニヤの三流大学で、こゝを卒業した学問のある人間と言ったのは、村の和尚を滑稽化したのである」と解説している（p. 268）。この司祭（訳者によってこの「司祭」を「牧師補」や「和尚」などさまざまな訳出をしていることは上記に述べたとおりである）と主人公のドン・キホーテは、愛読書である
騎士道物語について日々議論を交わしていたという描写があり、いかにもこの司祭は教養のある人物であるかのような印象を受けるが、実際のところはこの司祭の「教養人」という肩書きは大変疑わしいものであるという、母語話者にとっては笑いを誘う場面なのだ。しかしスペインの社会的通念についての知識を持ち合わせていないと、このセルバンテスの皮肉はなかなか理解できない。永田以降の訳ではいずれもこのことが注か、もしくは本文中に織りこむ形で説明されている。牛島は巻末の注にて「三流大学の代名詞のような大学。したがってここでは村の司祭が諷刺されている」としている（p. 416）。岩根は同ページにおける注釈で「シグェンサ
大学は一四七二年の設立以来の三流校。したがってそこを出た司祭を博識な人物と言うのは皮肉である」と表現している（p. 51）。荻内は注はつけずに「三流で知られるシグエンサ大学を出た教養人である」と端的に本文で皮肉であることを示している（p. 40）。
ところが、重訳である片上は、Ormsby が “Siguenza was one of the Universidades menores, theǊǽǽǊ固有名詞や言葉遊びにおける『ドン・キホーテ』邦訳比較

degrees of which were often laughed at by the Spanish humorists.”（p. 1）と正確に解説しているにも関わらず、「大学の名、そこの学位は價値を認められてゐたからだ」（p. 9）と真逆の解釈をしてしまっている。森田はこの大学についての解説は一切していない。底本となった Motteux
訳も同様である。したがって、重訳の時代に出版された㧞つの作品では、この司祭が「シグエンサ大学出身」であるという面白みを理解することはできないのだ。こういった原文の妙を生かすも殺すも訳者次第なのである。
もうひとつ例を挙げる。前編第㧠章の、遍歴の旅に出たドン・キホーテが窮地に立たされているアンドレス少年を助け、彼の主人に滞納している賃金を支払うよう命ずる場面である。少年が月㧣レアルの給金が㧥か月分滞納していると言うと、ドン・キホーテはそれを計算して73レアルの支払いが必要だと結論を出す。しかしこれでは計算が合わない。この箇所は解釈が分かれる場面である。重訳時代の作品は、セルバンテスの計算間違いとして底本、重訳ともに “sixty-three reals”（Ormsby、p. 9、および Motteux、p. 41）、「六十三レーェル」（片上、p. 26）と修正して書いている。また原語の Marín 版も “sesenta y tres reales” と注釈なしに訂正されて
レアール

おり、これを底本としている永田も「六十三貫文」としている（p. 137）。
ところが、別の底本である Riquer 版では “setenta y tres reales” となっており、注で「初期のドン・キホーテの版ではそのまま 73レアルとなっているが、近年の版では 63 レアルに修正されている。しかしながら、セルバンテスはドン・キホーテにわざと計算を間違えさせ、弱者である少年を助けるという英雄的行為をさせたのだとする考察もある」といった趣旨の解説をしている（p. 56）。Riquer を底本とした牛島訳は同様に「七十三レアル」（p. 86）に注釈で「六十三レアルの誤植の可能性もあるが、セルバンテスはドン・キホーテに故意に間違えさせているとも考えられる。もちろん、弱い立場にある下男にとって有利になるようにとの配慮からである」（p. 419）とつけ加えている。岩根も「七十三レアル」と書き、「印刷ミスではなくおそら
くわざとドン・キホーテに計算違いをさせたのであろう」（p. 67）と注をつけている。荻内は注釈はなくただ「七十三レアル」（p. 66）としている。これは重訳、直訳の差というよりは翻訳された時代による解釈の変遷の一例だが、専門家による『ドン・キホーテ』研究が進むにしたがって、このように新しい「面白み」を作品に反映させることが可能となるのだ。

ȝɢɝȾ
ここまで、明治時代から現在までの『ドンキホーテ』の邦訳の流れをつかみ、その第一期にあたる重訳の作品と、第二期にあたる直訳の作品とを比較してきた。重訳の時代はスペイン語の知識もなく、また 17 世紀当時の文化的背景についての見識も不足したままの翻訳であるの
ǊǽǽǊ

愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71 巻第㧟号で、どうしても細かいニュアンスを拾うことが難しい。そのようななかでも、物語の内容が大筋において原文と一致していて正確なのはひとえに訳者の尽力と力量の賜物であり、また底本となった英語訳の正確性によるものである。言葉遊びや洒落の表現もある程度は日本語訳に反映されており、重訳しかなかった時代の読者であっても、この物語の筋を追い、面白さを味わ
うことは充分に可能である。しかしながら、セルバンテス特有の文章構成の面白さであった
り、スペインの社会的背景を踏まえた表現であったりと、作品をより奥深く味わうためには、
やはり直訳である永田以降の作品を読むことに勝るものはない。そういった意味で、最初に直訳による完訳を果たした永田（会田もほぼ同時期に訳していたが）の功績は大きく、のちの『ドン・キホーテ』邦訳に大きな影響を与えたといえる。また、最新の訳が出版されるたびに、『ドン・キホーテ』研究で新たに明らかになった要素も盛り込まれ、その内容はより充実してゆくのだ。
また、各翻訳を時代ごとに整理すると、翻訳する際に何を重視し、何を削るのか、その取捨選択の傾向がより鮮明に見て取れる。片上は、スペインについての知識を持たない読者にいかにこの物語を楽しんでもらうかという点を念頭に置いて翻訳を進めたように思える。森田も、片上よりは意訳に傾きつつも、『ドン・キホーテ』が本質的に持つ可笑しさを日本語で表現することを重要視している。その一方で、永田や牛島など直訳初期の訳者は、その豊富な知識を生かしてより鮮明に、具体的に読者に情景を想像させるため、単位や通貨といった用語を解説も交えつつ積極的に使用しながら、リアリティをともなった翻訳を目指しているように思う。
そして、スペインや『ドン・キホーテ』について一定程度の情報が日本人に広く知られた近年において翻訳に取り組んだ荻内や岩根は、率直な翻訳を控えめに、かつその精度は失わない絶妙なバランスでもって、読み進めやすさに最も重きを置いた作品を生み出している。これからは、より翻訳者ごとの個性が生きた日本語版『ドン・キホーテ』が生まれるのであろう。将来、また新しいスタイルのドン・キホーテやサンチョ・パンサ、そしてその物語の世界と出会うことを楽しみにしたい。

า㧝）樋口正義他著『「ドン・キホーテ」事典』より「『ドン・キホーテ』翻訳の変遷」、p. 391。
㧞）毎日新聞 2005年10 月25 日付、朝刊、p. 3。
㧟）「『ドン・キホーテ』の背景とセルバンテス」内の「翻訳をめぐって」、pp. 20‒23。
㧠）島村と片上の共訳というかたちで出版されているが、実際はほとんどの部分を片上が訳したので、以下この版を「片上訳」とする。
㧡）ただし、永田の後に出版した進藤の訳では「牧師」となっている。
㧢）永田の『ドン・キホーテ』出版当初のことで、現在の通貨はユーロである。

ǊǽǽǊ


固有名詞や言葉遊びにおける『ドン・キホーテ』邦訳比較Վᐎ୫စ
Cervantes, M. Don Quijote de La Mancha, ed. M de Riquer, Juventud,1944.
Cervantes, M. The History of Don Quijote de La Mancha, ed. J Ormsby, William Benton,1952.
Cervantes, M. The History of The Ingenious Gentleman, Don Quijote de La Mancha, ed. P Motteux, Little, Brown andCompany,1864, vol. 1.

会田由訳『才智あふるる郷士ドン・キホーテ・デ・ラ・マンチャ』（前篇）、河出書房新社、1958 年、（後篇）、
筑摩書房、1962 年。
岩根圀和訳『新訳ドン・キホーテ』（前後編）彩流社、2012 年。
牛島信明訳『機知に富んだ郷士ドン・キホーテ・デ・ラ・マンチャ』（前後篇）岩波書店、1999 年。
荻内勝之訳、堀越千秋絵『ドン・キホーテ』（前後篇）、新潮社、2005 年。
雄島濱太郎訳『世界奇書近藤敏三郎訳『新訳

ドンキホーテー』育成会、1902 年。

ドン・キホーテ物語』精華堂書店、1910年。

佐々木邦訳『全訳ドン・キホーテ』東亜堂書房、1914 年。
島村抱月・片上伸訳『ドン・キホーテ』（上下二巻）、植竹書院、1915 年。
進藤遠訳『永邁なる貴紳ラ・マンチャのドン・キホーテ』（前篇）河出書房、1951 年。
永田寛定・高橋正武訳『ドン・キホーテ』（正篇・続篇㧢冊）、岩波文庫、1948‒1977 年。
堀口大学訳『奇抜な郷士ドン・キホーテ・デ・ラ・マンチャ』（正編）、講談社、1976 年。
松居松葉訳『鈍機翁冒険譚』（上下）、博文館、1893 年。
森田草平訳『ドン・キホーテ』（上下）、国民文庫刊行会、1927‒1928年。
矢口達監修『ドン・キホーテ』潮文閣、1928年。
ワ・シ編訳「鈍喜翁奇行傳」『教育雑誌』贊育社、1887年。

片倉充造著『ドン・キホーテ批評論』南雲堂フェニックス、2007 年。
泉水浩隆編『翻訳と通訳の過去・現在・未来

多言語と多文化を結んで』三修社、2022 年。

永田寛定著「『ドン・キホーテ』の邦譯について」『図書』(10)、岩波書店、1950 年。
樋口正義・本田誠二・坂東省次・山崎信三・片倉充造著『「ドン・キホーテ」事典』行路社、2006 年。
『毎日新聞』2005 年10月 25 日付、朝刊、p. 3。

ǊǽǽǊ


Cohen モデルにおける

と

南

裕

の振る舞いについて明*

概要

Fσ イデアルによる商代数 P(ω)/I における分離基数 s(I) と非分離基数 r(I) の Cohen 強制法での振る舞いを調べ, s(I) < cov(M) や r(I) > non(M) の相対無矛盾性を示す．これらは 2021 年度に国内研究で行った成果の一部である.

キーワード
強制法, Cohen 強制法, Fσ イデアル, 分離基数, 非分離基数

1 導入
自然数の部分集合全体を有限集合で割った P(ω)/ﬁn の構造は集合論において詳しく研究されている．ここで [A], [B] ∈ P(ω)/ﬁn にたいして [A] ≤ [B] を A \ B が有限のときのことと定める. このとき (P(ω)/ﬁn) の組み合わせ論的な性質は基数不変量として表現され，それらのあいだの関係は van Douwen の図式として表されて長いあいだ研究されてきた.
近年，(P(ω), ≤) と似た構造と van Douwen の図式にあらわれる基数不変量と類似な基数不変量が定義され分析されている．ここでは P(ω)/I という構造の基数不変量を分析する.

1.1 準備と定義
ここでは関連する概念を紹介する. この論文では標準的な集合論の慣用と記号を使う. ω ω は自然数全体 ωから自然数全体 ω への関数全体を表す．ω <ω で自然数から ω への関数の全てを表す. 無限集合 X にたいして [X]ω と [X]<ω はそれぞれ X の可算無限集合全体と X の有限集合全体を表す.

A, B ⊂ ω にたいして A は B に ほとんど含まれる (A ⊂∗ B) とは A \ B が有限集合であるときのことをいう. A, B ⊂ ω にたいして A と B がほとんど等しい (A =∗ B) とは A ⊂∗ B かつ B ⊂∗ A が成り立つときのことをいう. P(ω)/ﬁn とは =∗ によって導入された同値類に, [A] ≤ [B] という順序を A ⊂∗ B によって定めたものである，ただし [A] とは A の同値類のことである. 以降，簡単のために同値類 (P(ω)/ﬁn, ≤) を
考える代わりに ([ω]ω , ⊂∗ ) という構造を扱う.
∗ 愛知学院大学教養部数学・統計学教室

ǊǽǽǊ


愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71 巻第㧟号A, B ∈ [ω]ω にたいして A が B を分離するとは |A ∩ B| = |B \ A| = ω となるときのことをいう.
S ⊂ [ω]ω が分離族であるとは，任意の B ∈ [ω]ω にたいして A ∈ S で A が B を分離するものがあるときのことをいう．分離基数 s は分離族の最小濃度のことである.

R ⊂ [ω]ω が非分離族であるとはどんな A ∈ [ω]ω を選んでも全ての R の要素を分離できないときのことをいう．言い換えると任意の A ∈ [ω]ω にたいして B ∈ R で |A ∩ B| < ω または |B \ A| < ω となるものが存在する. 非分離基数 r は非分離族の最小濃度のことである.
基数不変量を分析するさいに Cichoń の図式と呼ばれる図式とそこにあらわれる古典的な基数不変量が重要になる．まず Cichoń の図式にあらわれる基数不変量を導入する．

f, g ∈ ω ω にたいして f ≤∗ g を有限個を除いて全ての n ∈ ω で f (n) ≤ g(n) が成り立つことで定める．このとき G ⊂ ω ω が支配的な集合族であるとは任意の f ∈ ω ω にたいして g ∈ G で f ≤∗ g となるものが存在するときのことをいう. このとき支配基数 d は支配的な集合族の最小濃度のことである．また F ⊂ ω ω が非有界集合族であるとは任意の g ∈ ω ω にたいして f ∈ F で f ≤∗ g とならないものが存在するときのことをいう．このとき非有界基数 b は非有界集合族の最小濃度のことである．
実数 R 上のイデアル J にたいして次の 4 つの基数がよく使われる.

add(J ) = min{|H| : H ⊂ J かつ任意の J ∈ J にたいして H ∈ H で H ⊂ J となるものが存在する }.
non(J ) = min{|X | : X ⊂ R かつ任意の J ∈ J にたいして x ∈ X で x ∈ J となるものが存在する }.
cov(J ) = min{|H| : H ⊂ J かつ任意の x ∈ R にたいして J ∈ H で x ∈ J となるものが存在する }.
cof(J ) = min{|H| : H ⊂ J かつ任意の J ∈ J にたいして H ∈ H で J ⊂ H となるものが存在する }.
特に J が痩集合イデアル M や零集合イデアル N のときが基数不変量の分析で重要となる．
これらの基数不変量のあいだには次の関係がある．(κ → λ は κ ≤ λ が ZFC で証明可能を意味する)

cov(N )O

add(N )

/ non(M)O/ cof(M)
O

bO

/d
O

/ add(M)/ cov(M)/ cof(N )O/ non(N )この図式は Cichoń の図式と呼ばれる．

r と s は古典的な基数不変量と次のような関係がある.
命題 1.1. r ≥ cov(M), cov(N ), b. s ≤ non(M), non(N ), d.
図示すると次のようになる. (κ → λ は κ ≤ λ が ZFC で証明可能を意味する)

j4 r
jjjj E V--jjjj
j
j
j
-jjjj
j
j
j
j
-/ non(M)/ cof(N )cov(N )-- / cof(M)
O
O
O V-O
------ /-bO-- E dO------/ add(M)/ cov(M)/ non(N )-add(N )
4
-jjjj
j
j
j
j
-j
j
jjjj
jjjj
sj
ǊǽǽǊ


Cohen モデルにおけるとの振る舞いについて

さらに s と cov(M) の関係は決定できない. s < cov(M) が Cohen モデルで成り立ち, s > cov(M) がMathias モデルで成り立つ．同様に r > non(M) をみたすモデル (Cohen モデル) と r < non(M) をみたす
モデル [BJ, Model 7.5.9] が存在する．
与えられた集合 X の部分集合族 I ⊂ P(X) が X 上のイデアルであるとは以下をみたすときのことをいう.

(1) A, B ∈ I ならば A ∪ B ∈ I.
(2) A, B ⊂ X, A ⊂ B で B ∈ I ならば A ∈ I.
(3) X ∈ I.
イデアル I が与えられたとき I + は X の部分集合で I の要素でないもの全体を表す.
このとき ω 上のイデアル I にたいして P(ω)/ﬁn 同様に P(ω)/I という構造を考えることができる.

A, B ∈ I + にたいして A ⊂I B を A \ B ∈ I で定める．A, B ∈ I + にたいして A =I B は A \ B ∈ I かつ
B \ A ∈ I で定める. P(ω)/I は =I による同値類に順序 [A] ≤I [B]I を A ⊂I B によって定めたものである．ただし [A] は A の =I による同値類である．P(ω)/ﬁn 同様に, 簡単のために (P(ω)/I, ≤I ) を考えるか
わりに (I + , ⊂I ) を扱う.

[ω]ω のときと同様に I + にも分離族，非分離族が導入できる. A, B ∈ I + にたいして A が B を I-分離す
るとは A ∩ B ∈ I + かつ B \ A ∈ I + となるときのことをいう. S ⊂ I + が I-分離族であるとは，任意のB ∈ I + にたいして A ∈ S で A が B を I-分離するものがあるときのことをいう. I-分離基数 s(I) は I-分離族の最小濃度のことである. R ⊂ I + が I-非分離族であるとはどの A ∈ I + を選んでも B ∈ R で A は B
を I-分離できないものが存在するときのことをいう. すなわち B ∈ R で A ∩ B ∈ I または A \ B ∈ I が成り立つものが存在する. I-非分離基数 r(I) は I-非分離族の最小濃度のことである.
この先，主に X として可算集合を考える．このため扱うイデアルは ω 上のイデアルと見なすことができる．さらに I はイデアル ﬁn を含むものとする．ここで ﬁn は ω の有限集合全てからなる集合のことである.

P(ω) の位相は ω の部分集合をその特徴関数と同一視したものから導かれるものとする．ここで 2ω は積位相が入っているものとする. このときイデアル I が Borel, Fσ , 解析集合であるとはそれぞれがこの位相において Borel, Fσ , 解析集合であるときのことをいう.
典型的な Fσ イデアルとして summable イデアルがある. イデアル I が summable であるとは, ある関数

p : ω → R≥0 が存在して，

p(n) = ∞ となりn∈ω

I = {A ⊂ ω :

p(n) < ∞}n∈A

をみたすときのことをいう. ここで R≥0 は非負の実数全体の集合である．
この論文ではイデアル I が Fσ イデアルであるときの r(I), s(I) と cov(M), non(M) の関係を調べる．
イデアルを制限するのは次の性質があるためである.
命題 1.2. I が Fσ イデアルであるとき，P(ω)/I は σ-閉である.
このことより I が Fσ -イデアルのとき s(I) ≥ ω1 となる. なお s や r との関係は次のことが知られている．
定理 1.1. [Brendle] 任意の summable イデアル I にたいして s(I) < s は ZFC と相対無矛盾である. 同様に r(I) > r は ZFC と相対無矛盾である.

s と s(I), r と r(I) はそれぞれ異なるため，先ほどの図式にあらわれた古典的な基数不変量との関係を調べることが重要になってくる.

ǊǽǽǊ


愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71 巻第㧟号2 s(I), r(I) と古典的な基数不変量の関係
Mazur による Fσ -イデアルの特徴付けを導入する.
集合 X 上の submeasure ϕ とは関数 ϕ : P(X) → [0, ∞] で以下の 3 つの条件をみたすものである：(1) ϕ(∅) = 0.
(2) A ⊂ B ならば ϕ(A) ≤ ϕ(B) かつ(3) ϕ(A ∪ B) ≤ ϕ(A) + ϕ(B).
つまらない場合を避けるために，さらに次の条件をみたすものとする:(4) 任意の X の有限集合 F にたいして ϕ(F ) < ∞.
ω 上の submeasure ϕ が下半連続な submeasure であるとは, ϕ(A) = lim ϕ(A ∩ n) をみたすときのことをn→∞いう. ϕ が下半連続な submesure であるならば Fin(ϕ) = {A ⊂ ω : ϕ(A) < ω} はイデアルとなる. この下半
連続な submeasure を使って, Mazur は以下のような Fσ イデアルの特徴付けを与えた.
定理 2.1. [Mazur] 以下は同値である:(1) I は Fσ イデアル.
(2) ある下半連続 submeasure ϕ が存在して I = Fin(I).
この定理から s と s(I), r と r(I) は命題 1.1 とよく似た性質が成り立つことがわかる．
命題 2.1.

(1) [Brendle] Fσ イデアル I にたいして, s(I) ≤ d.

(2) Fσ イデアル I にたいして, s(I) ≤ non(M). 同様に r(I) ≥ cov(M).
ただし， non(N ) や cov(N ) との関係で同様の結果が成り立つかどうかはまだわかっていない.
図示すると次のようになる (κ → λ は κ ≤ λ が ZFC で証明可能であることを表す．点線矢印は不明を表している).

4 r(I)
C W...

..

..


.. / cof(M)/ non(M) ..
O
O W// 
..
// 

..
/
 //
.. /
//
bO
.. D dO
//
.
//
...

//

//
/ add(M) / cov(M)
//

//

?
// s(I)?

cov(N )O

add(N )

ǊǽǽǊ/ cof(N )O

4/ non(N )Cohen モデルにおけるとの振る舞いについて

3 I が Fσ イデアルであるときの s(I) < cov(M) と r(I) > non(M) の証明
定理 3.1. I を Fσ イデアルとすると s(I) < cov(M) は ZFC と相対無矛盾である．同様に r(I) > non(M)は ZFC と相対無矛盾である．
証明は次の補題から導かれる.
補題 3.1. Ẋ を C-名前で C Ẋ ∈ I + となるものとする. このとき I + の要素の可算列 Xn : n ∈ ω で

Y ∈ I + で Y が全ての n ∈ ω にたいして Xn を I-分離するのであれば
C “Y は Ẋ を I-分離する”
補題 3.1 の証明. I は Fσ イデアルであることから下半連続な submeasure ϕ で I = Fin(ϕ) をみたすものが存在する. Cohen 強制法 C は可算なので {pn : n ∈ ω} と枚挙ができる. 各 n ∈ ω にたいして C の下降列

pin : i ∈ ω , 自然数の上昇列 ki と Xn ∈ I + を次のように定める:(1) p0n = pn で各 i ∈ ω にたいして pin ≥ pi+1n .
(2) pin  “Ẋ ∩ ki = Xn ∩ ki かつ ϕ(Ẋ ∩ ki ) ≥ i”.
Y ∈ I + が任意の n ∈ ω にたいして Xn を I-分離したとする, すなわち全ての n ∈ ω にたいして Y ∩Xn ∈ I +かつ Xn \ Y ∈ I + , これは Mazur の特徴付けからさらに ϕ(Y ∩ Xn ) = ϕ(Xn \ Y ) = ∞ だといえる．
このとき  “Y は Ẋ を I-分離する” を示す. これを示すには任意の p ∈ C と任意の m ∈ ω にたいしてr ≤ p かつ r  “ϕ(Ẋ ∩ Y ) ≥ m かつ ϕ(Ẋ \ Y ) ≥ m” となる r が存在することを示せばよい.
p ∈ C と m ∈ ω が与えられたとき {pn : n ∈ ω} が C の枚挙であることから p = pn となる n ∈ ω がある．Y が Xn を I-分離することから ϕ(Y ∩ Xn ) = ϕ(Xn \ Y ) = ∞ となるので, ϕ が下半連続である
ことから十分大きな i ∈ ω をとれば ϕ(Xn ∩ Y ∩ ki ) ≥ m かつ ϕ(Xn \ Y ∩ ki ) ≥ m. ここで pin ≤ pn は

pin  “Ẋ ∩ ki = Xn ∩ ki ” となるので pin  “ϕ(Ẋ ∩ Y ∩ ki ) ≥ m かつ ϕ(Ẋ \ Y ∩ ki ) ≥ m”. したがってr ≤ p かつ r  “ϕ(Ẋ ∩ Y ) ≥ m かつ ϕ(Ẋ \ Y ) ≥ m” となる r が存在する. よって補題が成り立つ．
定理 3.1 の証明. 有限台反復強制法の保存定理から [BJ] 補題は κ 回の有限台反復強制法でも成り立つ (κ は任意の基数)．基礎モデル V では連続体仮説が成立すると仮定し, κ > ω1 の正則基数とすると κ 回の有限台反復強制法 Cκ による拡大 V Cκ を考えると V Cκ |= cov(M) = κ となる [BJ]. 補題と保存定理から (I + )V 集
合が (I + )VCκの要素を I-分離するので V Cκ |= s(I) = ω1 . あわせて s(I) < cov(M) の相対無矛盾性がいえる.

r(I) > non(M) の相対無矛盾性を示す．基礎モデル V はマーチンの公理 MA をみたして連続体濃度 c を
κ > ω1 とする. このとき r(I) = c = κ である．ω1 回の Cohen 強制法の有限台反復強制法 Cω1 による拡大
V Cω1 を考えると V Cω1 |= non(M) = ω1 . 補題と保存定理から各 Ẋ ∈ (I)VC ω1

にたいして {Xn : n ∈ ω} ∈ V

で Y ∈ V が任意の n ∈ ω にたいして Xn を I-分離するなら, Y は Ẋ を I-分離する. V Cω1 で R ⊂ I + が|R| < κ をみたすなら, R =

{{Xn : n ∈ ω} : Ẋ ∈ R で {Xn : n ∈ ω} は Ẋ にたいして補題をみたす }とすると R ∈ V で |R | < κ. V |= r(I) = c = κ より R は I-分離基数ではないのである Y ∈ V で全ての R の要素を I-分離できる. すると保存定理と補題から Y は Ẋ ∈ R の要素を全て I-分離できるので Rは I-非分離族ではない．以上から V Cω1 |= r(I) = c = κ となるので r(I) > non(M) の相対無矛盾性がいえ
る．

ǊǽǽǊ


愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71 巻第㧟号

参考文献[BJ] Tomek Bartoszyński and Haim Judah. Set theory on the structure of the real line. A. K. Peters
1995.
[Brendle] Jörg Brendle. Cardinal invariants of analytic quotients. http://www.logic.univie.ac.at/
2009/esi/pdf/brendle.pdf[Mazur] Krzysztof Mazur Fσ -ideals and ω1 ω1∗ -gaps in the boolean algebra P(ω)/I. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 138(2):103-111, 1991.

ǊǽǽǊ


愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

資料

Recollections of a Grunt in America’s
Draft Resistance Movement(Part Two: The legal defense)

R. Jeffrey Blair

My brothers and I were part of a generation that grew up in the shadow of military conscription (seetable on page 28). Our grandfather and his two sons—Dad and Uncle Russ—were career Army officers(Blair, 2024, 79–80). Our cousin Robert H. Blair joined the Army during the Korean War and made it his
career. We grew up in the 1960s when the times they were a-changin’. With it came unrest, the Civil Rights
Movement, a vibrant counterculture, and an anti-war movement that included draft resistance.
More and more young men refused induction or simply failed to report. They faced prison sentencesof up to five years under the Selective Service Act or six years under the Federal Youth Corrections Act.
Rather than simply waiting to be inducted into the draft resistance movement, resisters began violating
draft card regulations. The penalties for violations of Selective Service regulations (32 CFR 1621) were
just as severe. Registrants were required at all times to carry two cards: (a) a Registration Certificate and(b) a Notice of Classification.
When a photo appeared in Life magazine of Chris Kearns burning his draft card at Whitehall Induction
Center on July 29, 1965, enraged congressmen and senators quickly inserted a new clause into the penalty
section of the Selective Service Act (50 USC 462 (b) (3)). House Resolution 10306 was introduced on
August 5 and passed the House five days later by a vote of 393 to 1. It passed the Senate on August 13 andwas enacted August 30. This 1965 Amendment made it a separate offense to destroy or mutilate the cards.
Despite this, resisters continued setting them on fire, tearing them up, and turning them in.

ǊǽǽǊ


愛知学院大学

Enacted

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

ExpiredEventsSelective Service Act of 1940
Sep. 16, 1940

March 31, 1947

World War II

Selective Service Act of 1948
June 24, 1948

June 24, 1950

June 23, 1950

July 9, 1950

Korean War begins

July 9, 1951

China enters the Korean War
my birth May 30, 1951

June 30, 1950

Brothers Bob and Russ born

Universal Military Training and Service Act (1951)
June 19, 1951

July 1, 1953

June 29, 1953

July 1, 1955

Korean War ends
Brother Greg born

June 30, 1955

July 1, 1959

kindergarten to 2nd grade

March 23, 1959

July 1, 1963

3rd to 6th grade

March 28, 1963

July 1, 1967

Gulf of Tonkin incident
7th to 10th grade

Military Selective Service Act of 1967
June 30, 1967

July 1, 1971

11th and 12th grade
two years of college

Induction authority lapses
about 3 months

AWOL sanctuary

Military Selective Service Act (1971)
Sep. 28, 1971

July 1, 1973

draft card burning
arrest and trial

Yet indictments for draft card violations remained quite rare. Only fifty men during the Vietnam era
were ever charged (Baskir and Strauss, 1978). Forty of them were convicted. Let’s look at a few of thosecases. Most of this information comes from official court records: the Federal Supplement, the Federal
Reporter (2nd series), and Supreme Court Reports.

A Short History of Draft Card Violations
On 15 October 1965, at a rally near Whitehall Induction Center, David Miller burned his Notice ofClassification Certificate to protest the draft, the war in Vietnam, and “the draft card burning law itself”(367 F. 2d 72). A grand jury in the Southern District of New York indicted him for destroying it. He waived
his right to a jury trial and was convicted. Judge Tyler sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment butǊǽǽǊRecollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

suspended the sentence and placed him on two years of probation. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals
in New York City applied a balancing test: Freedom of Speech vs. efficient functioning of the Selective
Service System. The three judges decided in favor of Selective Service and affirmed the conviction.
Five days after Miller, Stephen Smith burned a substantial portion of his Registration Certificate
at an anti-war rally in Iowa City (249 F. Supp. 515). He was charged in a two-count indictment (I) for
mutilation and destruction and (II) for failing to have it in his personal possession. Like Miller, he waived
his right to a jury trial. Federal Judge Stephenson (Southern District Court of Iowa) dismissed Count II
because it failed to state that he had willfully and knowingly failed to possess the card. As for Count I, thejudge found him guilty as charged and placed him on three years’ probation. The Eighth Circuit Court in
St. Louis (368 F. 2d 529) agreed with the ruling of the Second Circuit in the Miller case and affirmed theconviction.
On 6 November 1965, Tom Cornell, Marc Edelman, Roy Lisker, David McReynolds, and Jim Wilsonburned their cards at a public rally at Union Square Park Pavilion in New York City. Upon conviction,
Cornell was imprisoned for five months in Danbury Correctional Institution in Connecticut.

On March 31 of the next year David O’Brien, John Phillips, David Reed, and David Benson
burned draft cards on the steps of the Federal Courthouse in South Boston. A grand jury in the District ofMassachusetts charged O’Brien with mutilating, destroying, and changing his Registration Certificate. A
jury found him guilty. He was sentenced to six years in prison under the provisions of the Youth Correction
Act, one year more than the maximum sentence provided by the Military Selective Service Act.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, however, held the 1965 Amendment to the Military
Selective Service Act to be an unconstitutional abridgment of his Freedom of Speech (376 F. 2d 538).
The amendment was aimed at public destruction, witnessed events, the speech element of the offense.
Intentional non-possession was also a violation of regulations. The three judges thought that O’Brien
should have been charged with non-possession, and that the facts that were presented at his trial sustained
this alternative charge. They affirmed his conviction for the lesser included offense of non-possession andremanded the case back to the district court for resentencing.
Both the United States government and O’Brien appealed the First Circuit’s decision to the Supreme
Court. O’Brien wished to challenge his conviction for a crime that he had not been charged with. The
government, on the other hand, objected to the ruling that the 1965 Amendment, which had earlier been
ruled constitutional in the Second Circuit and the Eighth Circuit1, violated the defendant’s right to freespeech. The Supreme Court accepted the case so that it could eliminate this contradiction.
ǊǽǽǊ愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

The majority opinion, written by Justice Earl Warren, vacated the judgement of the First Circuit,reinstating both the conviction and the sentence (391 U.S. 367). They noted that the destruction amendment
could be applied to anyone who destroys someone else’s draft card. The incidental restriction of Free Speech
was outweighed by substantial government intertest in preserving the information printed on Selective
Service certificates, which promoted the smooth functioning of the Selective Service System. Justice John
Harlan II wrote a separate concurring opinion, while Justice William Douglas wrote a dissenting opinion,
in which he pleaded for a hearing on the constitutionality of a peacetime draft.
This landmark decision had wide repercussions for Freedom of Speech. Draft cards deserved
protection, only because of the important information that they contained. Twenty years later in a split
decision (5–4) the Supreme Court decided that a protester could legally burn the American flag (491 U.S.
397). Freedom of Speech outweighed any government interest.
On 14 December 1966, Bruce Dancis ripped one of his draft cards into four pieces and returned
the pieces to his local board (406 F. 2d 729). He was indicted in the Northern District of New York formutilating it and was sentenced to six years under the Youth Corrections Act. The Second Circuit Court ofAppeals affirmed the conviction and the sentence.
Dancis’ supporters at Cornell University called for a mass card-burning at an anti-war march on 15
April 1967 (Ferber and Lynd, 1971, 72). Their goal was to get 500 people to pledge to participate. On
April 14th they decided to go ahead with only 57. The next day in Central Park at Sheep’s Meadow abouta hundred more men joined them. Gary Rader, a reserve member of the Special Forces, wore his uniform
for the occasion. His green beret stood out. He seems to have been the only one arrested—for mutilating
his draft card and, incidentally, the unauthorized wearing of his army uniform (Rader, 1967).

The goal of the Selective Service System was to provide manpower for the Armed Forces, notprisoners for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. With that in mind the Director of the Selective Service System
on 24 October 1967, responded to such widespread acts of defiance with Local Board Memorandum #85.
General Lewis B. Hershey suggested a new strategy—induction, rather than prosecution. Local boards
were directed to reclassify and induct Selective Service violators, reporting only the most flagrant cases
to the U.S. Attorney for prosecution. Thus David Gutknecht—who had dropped his draft cards at the feetof a U.S. Marshal eight days earlier during a protest in Minneapolis (406 F. 2d 494)—was NOT indicted
for failure to be in possession of his draft cards. Instead, his local board classified him I-A delinquent on
December 20 and six days later ordered him to report for induction on 24 January 1968, even ahead ofother men that had volunteered to be inducted.
ǊǽǽǊ

Recollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

He reported as ordered, but when he announced his intention to refuse, he was separated from theother inductees. Although he was thus deprived of the opportunity to refuse to take the required step
forward into military life, he was indicted in the District of Minnesota for failing and neglecting to comply
with an order to report for and submit to induction. He waived a jury trial and was convicted. The Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, ruled that the
Selective Service System lacked Congressional authority to punish “delinquents” by accelerating theirinductions and reversed the conviction (396 U.S. 295).
On December 4 David Rehfield and Bradley Littlefield burned their Notices of Classification on
the steps of Tucson City Hall (416 F. 2d 273). A number of people, including two FBI agents, werestanding near them, close enough to record their names and selective service numbers. Both Rehfield andLittlefield were indicted in the District of Arizona on two counts: (I) destruction and (II) non-possession.
Juries found them guilty on both counts. The judge sentenced them to prison under the Federal Youth
Corrections Act and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed their convictions and sentences.
On the exact same day, a draft counselor in Chicago returned his Registration certificate to the
Department of Justice. Nothing happened to Jeffrey Falk (479 F. 2d 616).

On 30 August 1968, Michael Weissman tore both his Registration Certificate and Notice ofClassification Certificates in half at a demonstration in front of St. Louis City Hall (434 F. 2d 175).
Declaring his independence from the Selective Service, he handed the pieces to a plain clothes detective,
who he thought was an FBI agent. He was indicted for mutilating, destroying, and changing his Registration
Certificate by tearing it asunder. His conviction in the Eastern District Court of Missouri and sentence
were affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis. The three-judge panel noted that tearing
up legal documents was the traditional way to nullify them and concluded that tearing up a draft card
constituted both mutilation and destruction.
In October, Jeffrey Falk mailed his I-A Notice of Classification to Federal Judge Hubert Will. Nothing
happened (479 F. 2d 616).

In May 1969 he sent another Notice of Classification certificate to his Local Board. Nothing happened… until he refused to submit to induction in May 1970. Then five months later he was charged in the
Northern District of Illinois with four counts: refusal to submit and three counts of non-possession. The
indictment was approved by the Chief of the Criminal Division, the First Assistant, the District Attorney in
the Chicago office, and then the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. Falk made motions to dismissǊǽǽǊ愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

the three draft card violations before and during his trial. He contended that he had been deliberately andillegally selected for prosecution because of his draft counseling work for Chicago Area Draft Resisters(CADRE). These motions were dismissed without a full hearing. Although the jury found him guilty on
all four counts, the judge granted a post-trial motion for acquittal on the first count. He sentenced Falk to
one year in prison for each of the three cards and made the sentences consecutive, a total of three years’
imprisonment.

Draft card violations were difficult to prosecute. Courts required evidence: witnesses and physicalevidence, or perhaps, self-incriminating testimony. For over a year General Hershey’s memorandum
diverted the flow of violations away from mutilation, destruction, and non-possession (50 USC 462 (b))
to failure to report for and submit to induction (50 USC 462 (a)). After the Gutknecht decision, these
indictments had to be dismissed, convictions reversed, prisoners released, and inductees discharged frommiliary service. From then on violators had to be indicted or ignored. They were often ignored.
When charges were filed, they could take a “shotgun approach”—mutilation and destruction in asingle count—or specify just one: destruction or mutilation. None of the defendants seems to have burnedor torn up more than one card. Smith, Rehfield, and Littlefield were charged with destruction and aseparate count of non-possession. That extra charge was dismissed on a technicality in the Smith case.
Falk alone was charged with three separate draft card violations. The violations had occurred over several
years. The Justice Department saved them up and tacked them on to a charge of refusal to submit toinduction.

1970–1971: Retirement and Protest
By the end of 1970 two generations of Blairs had retired. Uncle Russ had retired from the Army in1958 and from Culver Military Academy, where he taught Spanish and Russian, in June 1970. He wasliving in a retirement community in Alajic, Mexico. Dad had retired from the Army and moved to Foster
Village on the outskirts of Pearl Harbor. My grandfather was living half of each year with Uncle Russ andthe other half with us.
The two cadets in the third generation had left their military schools: Virginia Military Institute(VMI) and Culver Military Academy (CMA). Brother Bob spent his fourth year at University of Hawai’i,
graduating in June 1970. He attended law school at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill as part of
the U.S. Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Corps program. I attended California Institute of Technology.
ǊǽǽǊRecollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

In the spring of 1971, we both left school. We began protesting in tandem (Blair, 2024, 90–91). Bob wasarrested at a sit-in at the Pentagon in May. I was arrested at sit-in during an AWOL sanctuary in July. In
November I burned my draft cards at a demonstration inside the offices of my Local Board and abandoned
them. A photograph of the scorched cards appeared in the Honolulu Advertiser (see Appendix 1). The FBI
began their investigation. To paraphrase the words of Paul Simon’s song Keep the Customer Satisfied, we
had been in trouble with the law and now we were headed in for more.

1972: Call-ups by Lottery for Men Born in 1952
My cards had been turned over to the FBI. Selective Service staff quickly identified me when agents
presented photos of several possible suspects. The case seemed airtight. On January 27, Local Board #2
forwarded my Selective Service file to Hawaii State Headquarters. Perhaps this represented a significant
step towards prosecution. I don’t know, but on that same day something else that would prove of greatsignificance happened. In Washington, G. Gordon Liddy met with Attorney-General John Mitchell, Jeb
Magruder, and John Dean. He presented a wild plan to disrupt the Democratic National Convention andprotect the security of the Republican National Convention. Mitchell’s later approval of a scaled down
version of Operation Gemstone led to the Watergate scandal. In the interim, the Attorney-General left theJustice Department to head up President Nixon’s re-election campaign.
Meanwhile back in Honolulu, Assistant U.S. District Attorney William J. Eggers, III was trying todecide what to do. He had all the evidence that he needed to go to the grand jury. Busy with other cases,
however, he was seriously considering ignoring the violation. He decided to consult with his headquarters.
The Justice Department in Washington, D.C. insisted that he go forward with the prosecution. In fact,
they offered to dispatch one of their own attorneys to the Islands, if need be. Eggers assured them that the
Honolulu office would handle it.
My one-year leave-of-absence from college was coming to an end. Aware that I might be indicted,
I requested an extension until the fall. I didn’t want to be dragged away from my studies in handcuffs in
the middle of a term. There was no such thing as online classes in 1972. Caltech granted the extension
for a full year. I was very reluctant to put my education on hold for so long but decided to wait until
mid-summer. If I wasn’t charged by then, I would renew my request to come back in the fall. Little did I
imagine that a full year later I would still be awaiting trial.

During this period, I was looking for a job to replace the one I had lost in the wake of the trial for theǊǽǽǊ愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

sanctuary at Our Lady of Peace Cathedral. Employers often used to ask applicants about their draft status.
I had returned a letter from my Local Board unopened, but assumed that I had been reclassified to I-A.
With a lottery number of 209, however, I was unlikely to be called up. I told prospective employers that I
was I-A. The two young male interviewers at one job interview informed me that they would be happy toconsider me for a position but only after I completed my military service. Two years after the first draft
lottery, General Hershey’s channeling scheme (Hasbrouck, 2022) was still interfering with young men’s
lives. Pushing them in the direction of the Army or jobs contributing to the national interest.
Lack of a job allowed me to devote full-time to my work at American Friends Service Committee(AFSC) as a volunteer draft counselor. As luck would have it, Program Secretary Murph Henkle, wasoffered a position with AFSC staff in Vietnam. It would be six weeks until his replacement, Bill Sullivan,
could arrive, so I was offered the position of Interim Program Secretary starting at the end of March.

American troops were being withdrawn from Vietnam, and Special Forces were among the first to
leave. My cousin Robert H. Blair, however, managed to get back into the action as a major in the regularforces. His fourth tour of duty in Vietnam was with the Military Assistance Command, Team 47 in Loc
Ninh. These teams trained, advised, and mentored the ground troops of South Vietnam (ARVN).
As America’s participation in the ground war cooled down, the campaign in the air heated up.
Electronic warfare was in its infancy. Detection was primitive by today’s standards. Without cameras it
was blind. Any movement that set off detectors could trigger massive retaliation, including cluster bombs.
Jim Albertini and Jim Douglass were convinced this was a violation of the Nuremberg principles. They
were looking for a way to go beyond protest, to resist and expose these war crimes.
They found it one morning in February, when they got stuck in a line of rush-hour traffic headed
into Hickam Air Base (Breems, 2022 and Messman, 2015). The cars were waved onto the base without
inspection. This gave their small group, called catholic Action of Hawaii, direct access to the base andthe Directorate of Electronic Warfare. First, Dr. Fred Dodge collected some human blood from Albertini,
Douglass, and volunteer doners within the anti-war community. Then on March 2, Chuck Giuli drove a
van full of protesters to the adjacent parking lot. TV news reporter Linda Coble went along for the rideand to report on the action. Albertini and Jim Douglass walked inside the building. Douglass delivered
an envelope addressed to the “commanding officer”. Major LaFrance accepted it. As the major stepped
into an inner office to deliver it, Douglass poured the blood on some files in an open drawer marked “topsecret”. LaFrance came back, saw what had happened, started choking him and then used him as a human
mop in a vain attempt to wipe blood off the floor. Out in the parking lot, the protesters handed out leafletsǊǽǽǊ

Recollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

to people arriving for work. The eight protesters were expelled from the base with letters barring themfrom coming back. Albertini and Douglass were released. No one was arrested that day.
Six days later, however, FBI agents suddenly arrested Albertini and Douglass at their homes. The
following day, after hearing the news on my car radio, I drove over to the Federal Courthouse. Pending
criminal docket sheets kept in the Court Clerk’s Office are public information. I asked to see them. Afterhanding me the small pile of docket sheets, one of the assistant clerks wondered to another in a low, but
audible, voice, if it was okay to put a docket sheet out before all the defendants had been arrested. Too late.
I had already seen the sheet with the names of all three defendants: United States vs. Albertini, Douglass,and Guili. They were charged with destruction of government property and conspiracy to destroy property.
Chuck Giuli was still at large, and I knew exactly where to find him.
I drove from the Federal Courthouse to Roosevelt High School in Makiki, where Chuck was giving
a slide presentation about electronic warfare to Setsuko Okubo’s class. He saw me in the hallway frombehind the overhead projector. In the hallway, he asked if everyone had been charged. No, just three—the
two who had poured the blood and their driver. When his presentation finished, he went to the FBI andturned himself in. “Where was the defiant spirit of Berrigan’s resistance?” I asked myself. If they werelooking for me, I would go underground and make them find me. That chance came very soon.

I formally requested the National Director to cancel my registration in a letter dated March 20 to the
Headquarters of the Selective Service System in Washington. Eight days later General Counsel Walter H.
Morse declined on his behalf.

Playing Cat and Mouse with the FBI
On Friday 7 April 1972, the Oahu Federal Grand Jury indicted me2. Although I had burned two draft
cards (see Appendix 1), I was only indicted for the destruction of my Certificate of Registration. Federal
Judge Beeks, visiting from the Western District of Washington State, set bail at $1,000 and issued an arrest
warrant. The docket sheet for criminal case #13,021 for the year3 was placed in the file of pending cases.
Six days later, on April 13, I walked into the Clerk’s Office to check the pending criminal docket
before heading to the court martial of George Lee. It was at his sanctuary at Our Lady of Peace Cathedralthat I had first been arrested (Blair, 2024, 91). He had recently gone AWOL from the Coast Guard again.
As I flipped through the docket sheets, I came across it—United States vs. Richard Jeffrey Blair4(similar to Appendix 5).
ǊǽǽǊ愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

Indictment filed – Bench Warrant ordered –Bail $1,000.00 – Bench Warrant issued.

A bench warrant (Appendix 4), also known as an arrest warrant, commands U.S. Marshals or otherauthorized officers5 to arrest defendants and bring them to federal court. I was, of course, standing in
the Court Clerk’s Office, located on the second floor of the Federal Courthouse. The U.S. Marshal’s
Office was a short distance down a narrow hallway. Around a corner, between the two offices, was themain corridor in front of the two courtrooms. Destiny was calling. I had been promoted from protester toresister. Nonchalantly I handed all the sheets back to the staff and said thank you.
USme

Courtroom I

Courtroom II(Judge King)(Judge Pence)Federal Courthouse 2F
I was checking the pending criminal docket sheets in the Court Clerk’s Office.
The U.S. Marshal’s Office (US) was a short distance down a narrow hallway.
The main corridor in front of the two courtrooms was just around the corner.

Then I proceeded on to Lee’s trial in the Gold Bond Building on Nimitz Highway and broke the newsof my indictment to anti-war friends, who had gathered to support him and witness the trial. As expected,
he was convicted and sent to the brig at Pearl Harbor.
Afterwards I phoned Mom to let her know why I was leaving home. I was going to go “underground”,
possibly one of the FBI’s ten least wanted fugitives. They hadn’t even shown up at my parents’ housein Foster Village yet. The U.S. District Attorney’s Office probably hadn’t given them the go-ahead,because prosecutors were still trying to decide whether to charge me with destruction of my Notice ofClassification—a II-S student deferment until 30 September 1971, one month before being burned. Had it
expired? A new Notice of Classification certificate had not yet been issued. Was the card legally protectedfrom destruction until a new one arrived?
My friends Ian and Meda Chesney-Lind offered to let me housesit their apartment, while they wereǊǽǽǊRecollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

on vacation. I immediately moved to the fourth floor of the Circle Jade apartments in Kaimuki. Before
dawn the next morning I drove past my family’s home in Foster Village. The coast seemed to be clear, so
I dropped in to pick up a few things. I explained to my parents that my moving away from home wasn’t
personal. The FBI would be coming for me. I was trying to avoid arrest.
Mom offered to send me to Canada. Later Grandpa Ed (Connelly) offered to let me hide out at his
beach house on Cape Cod. I declined both offers. I had no intention of running away. It was more like agame of hide-and-go-seek. It was the FBI’s job to find me, and I had no doubt that they would eventually
succeed.
A day or two later, I paid a brief visit to the Friends Meeting House in Manoa Valley to inform AFSC
that I wouldn’t be able to fulfill my duties as Interim Program Secretary. I assumed the FBI knew where I
worked. Indeed, after my arrest and arraignment Assistant District Attorney Eggers called me at the AFSC
Office.
Prosecutors finally decided to charge me with two counts, one for each of the two cards. Eggers
withdrew the original indictment and went back to the grand jury. On April 25, I was re-indicted (seeAppendix 2–3). Judge Martin Pence doubled the bail and issued a new arrest warrant. The case got a newnumber—Criminal No. 13,032 and a new docket sheet that would grow to three pages in length (Appendix
5–7).

Two of President Nixon’s appointments were above politics and thus carried over from the Johnson
administration: legendary FBI director J. Edgar Hoover and CIA director Richard Helms. On May 2,
Hoover passed away. The next day, Patrick Gray replaced him. He would soon become entangled in the
biggest political scandal of the century.

On the afternoon of May 4, two FBI agents finally arrived at our home in Foster Village. I, however,
was long gone. While Mom was talking with them, Greg came home from school. Afraid that they might
haul my younger brother off to jail, she hurriedly blurted out, “That’s not the one.” They questioned him,
but he didn’t know my whereabouts or how to contact me. As they left, they asked Mom to tell me that“they wanted to talk”. She interpreted that to mean “just talk”. On a subsequent, surreptitious visit home,
I told her that I knew exactly what they wanted to say. “You’re under arrest.” Upon realizing that she had
been played, she let out a groan.
I didn’t expect to be arrested anytime soon. I had moved to Kay and Jim Linn’s house at the topof Saint Louis Drive and was enjoying the fruit of their lychee tree and the company of their 3-year-oldǊǽǽǊ愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

daughter. My life as a fugitive, however, wouldn’t last forever. Although I intended to represent myself
in court, I wanted to request a court-appointed lawyer to act as my legal advisor. I had someone specificin mind, Jim Blanchfield. He had defended me and twelve others in state court on a misdemeanor charge
stemming from an AWOL sanctuary at Our Lady of Peace Cathedral (Blair, 2024, 91). Now he was inprivate practice. He had left the Legal Aid Society with Brook Hart and several other lawyers. Their office
was located on the fourth floor of the Dillingham Transportation Building. As I entered the building at 735
Bishop Street, I looked at the directory.

Hart, Sherwood, Leavitt, Blanchfield,
and Hall ………………….… Suite 433

Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Honolulu Field Office … Second floor

I took the elevator, wondering if the door would open along the way. It didn’t. Blanchfield was delighted
to take my case.
Murph Henkel’s replacement landed at Honolulu Airport, and I went out to welcome him. Bill
Sullivan arrived with his wife and two young children. He expressed surprise that I was not in some kindof disguise, not even a pair of sunglasses. In the words of Buffalo Springfield “paranoia strikes deep,
into your heart it will creep, it starts when you’re always afraid”. I guess that I wasn’t afraid that the man
would come and take me away. It would eventually come to pass, but not yet. By chance, I found a recent
Yale graduate that had just moved to Honolulu and was looking for a roommate. We began sharing hisapartment in Waikiki.

A month after his court martial, George Lee was still in the brig. Prisoners with good behavior,
however, were allowed to go to church under supervision. Tom Morrison, a fellow resister discharged
from the Coast Guard, thought it would cheer him up to see a couple of familiar faces at the 9:30 am
Catholic mass. On Sunday, May 14 we managed to get through the gate into Pearl Harbor Naval Base.
Everything went smoothly, until we tried to leave. We hadn’t expected to be stopped going off base, but
we were, apprehended and detained as trespassers. At the office of Base Security, guards asked to see
our identification, including my draft card. What, no draft card? “Are you registered with the Selective
Service?” No online data bases in 1972, and almost all government offices were closed on Sundays. TheyǊǽǽǊ

Recollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

demanded my home phone number, so they could inquire with one of my parents. Dad answered. He
confirmed my registration and neglected to mention my fugitive status. Tom and I were released.
June was coming. Dad had plans to attend the 30th Reunion of West Point’s Class of 1942. When I
dropped by, he asked me if, under the circumstances, it was all right to go. I assured him that it would takethe FBI several weeks, maybe even months, to find me. As it turned out, I was overconfident.
On May 28, White House “plumbers” successfully broke into the Watergate apartments inWashington, D.C. and planted listening devices. Overconfidence would be their downfall, as well. Twodays later I turned twenty-one. Then my father flew to West Point to get together with old friends and share
their stories of military service and family life.

In early June, John Witeck announced the news of my indictment at a small rally on the lawn in frontof the Federal Courthouse. I was in the audience. Witeck had scooped me. I had planned to announce it
myself in Hawaii Draft News, an occasional publication of AFSC-Hawaii. I happened to have purchasedfrom the Honolulu Advertiser an unpublished photo of Melvin Sanehira and I burning our cards. I put thatphoto on the front page with a caption quoting the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution (see below).
I was going to pass it out to registrants at the Bethel Street office Local Boards, the scene of our crime,
and then disappear like a Daniel Berrigan.

H a w a i i

D r a f t

N e w sNeither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shallhave been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or anyplace subject to their jurisdiction.
—13th Amendment to the Constitution—ǊǽǽǊ愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

In the evening of Monday June 5, I attended a catholic Action meeting at an old church in Waikiki.
Of the 16 or so active members, four of us had now been charged with felonies. My Selective Service
violation was on the agenda. What did we discuss? I don’t remember the details. Perhaps it was my plan
to distribute the story of my offense and indictment and then disappear. A member of Local Draft Board#6 had dropped in. It seems there was sympathy, or at least interest, in strange places. That is how divisive
the Vietnam War was.
The next day I was about to have lunch at a Chinese restaurant in Manoa with Jim Albertini and acouple other friends. Just as we were getting ready to order, he blurted out that two FBI agents were in theparking lot and headed our way. Was he sure? “Yes,” he said, “Agent Henry Burns6 is one of the two thatarrested me.” Luckily this restaurant had two perpendicular entrances. As they approached one, I swiftlyleft through the other. Albertini had a little chat with his FBI friend about what brought them so far fromtheir downtown office. Supposedly they were just dropping in for lunch. Yet the FBI was getting closer.

A Weekend Behind Bars in Halawa Valley
At about 2 pm on Friday June 9 Chuck Bollingmo7 and I went to the third floor of the Bethel-Pauahi
Building with some copies of Hawaii Draft News. Before doing that and making my escape, however, I
wanted to check the public records in the adjoining room. As usual, the reception staff in Room 307 gaveme permission. I assumed that the staff was still in the dark about my indictment and the arrest warrant.
Unfortunately, they weren’t. One of them must have called the FBI.
As I was looking through the large book of records, someone close behind me called my name. Twomen were standing on either side. Agents Malone and Bender8 led me a few feet further away from thedoor to a table against the back wall. They informed me that I was under arrest and gave me the required
Miranda Warning9 in writing. They asked me to sign their copy, acknowledging the fact. They failed,however, to mention that it included, underneath the warning, a waiver of rights10. I declined to sign.
No reaction and no interrogation. Continuing to the next step, they put me in handcuffs and led me out
the door into the hallway. I was still holding some papers, including copies of Hawaii Draft News. As wepassed Chuck, I handed him the papers and said good-bye.
The two agents and I walked down a couple of side streets to a brand-new building. Apparently, their
old office at the Dillingham Transportation Building had been vacant for a while. I wonder how long.
Their new office occupied an entire floor of the building. The agents took my photo and fingerprints, thenasked me to sign. I asked them if it was required. Rather than a simple yes or no, they informed me that IǊǽǽǊ

Recollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

wouldn’t be allowed to pay bail unless I signed. Since I hadn’t planned on posting bail, I declined to signas I had before. Again, no reaction. Continuing to the next step, they let me make a phone call, in fact, they
let me make two. They dialed the numbers for me and wrote them down in a little notebook.
First, I called home. My brother Greg answered. Mom was taking her afternoon nap. “I’ll tell her
when she wakes up. This may be the last good sleep she’ll have for a long time.” We hung up. She wasn’tsound asleep, however. She had woken up, heard Greg’s half of the conversation, and then spent a few
hours trying to call me back. The second call was to Mary Neilson so that she could let people at A.F.S.C.
and catholic Action know that I was in custody. My arrest was announced in the Honolulu Advertiser (10June 1972) the next day.
Having been booked by the FBI, it was time for them to take me to the Federal Courthouse on
Merchant Street11 and transfer me to the custody of U.S. Marshals (see Appendix 4). They are responsible
for moving federal prisoners—taking them to jail, bringing them to court, and taking them to prison afterconviction. This time the FBI drove me to the courtyard in the middle of the courthouse. It was a short ride.
The FBI agents deposited me in the U.S. Marshals’ small office on the second floor of the courthouse andremoved their handcuffs.
The marshals put me in a chain-link holding cell for a few minutes. When it was time to go, they
dressed me up in a long waist chain—long enough to accommodate two prisoners. The chain had longslim links at each end. These Martin links could slide through any of the other links. A marshal wound thechain two or three times around my waist and inserted one of the Martin links through a link at the front
to fit my waist size. He cuffed one hand and slid the empty cuff through the Martin link before cuffing myother hand. My upper body was thus fully restrained. Two marshals escorted me down the hall, into theelevator, and to a car in the courtyard. Just before I got into the back seat, they added leg shackles. Thenwe were ready for the drive along the old H–1 Freeway12 to Halawa Valley. Turning off the freeway, down
to the end of a narrow dirt road brought us to a chain link fence and a small guard shack.
Inside the fence was a medium-sized building13 with just one floor. The solid vault-like door at theentrance made a big clanging sound when it was unlocked and locked back up. Once inside the building
a guard asked me my waist size. Not being much of a shopper, I hesitated. He shoved me against a wall.
I made a guess. Afterwards things went more smoothly. I was allowed to shower, then given a brown
uniform and supper before being escorted to my cell.

Solid concrete walls divided the cells. The back wall of each was concrete, but the front was open
and barred, with a hinged cell gate. Guards called “turnkeys” used massive keys to open and close themǊǽǽǊ

愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

as well as the gate at the end of the cellblock hall. The solid concrete wall standing opposite the cells was
lined at intervals with TV sets on portable stands.
A turnkey dropped me off at the first cell. It was divided into two halves which were separated bybars and an open doorway. The half that you entered had one toilet and a couple of concrete picnic tables.
The inner half had some bunkbeds against the side wall. Although my uniform was brown, my cellmates
were all wearing blue uniforms14. At about 8 pm I was called out of the cell for a phone call. Mom had
finally found me. I assured her that I was fine. The lights went out at about 9 pm.
They came back on at 5:30 am, time for breakfast. My cellmates and I filed out of our cell gate andthe gate at the end of the cellblock hall, turned left, went a short distance, and turned left again into themess hall. Only 15 or 20 prisoners in all. Two long concrete tables. I sat down next to one of my cellmates.
He told me that I would have to sit at the other table, where the inmates in brown uniforms were sitting.
I moved to the other table. No knives, of course, or forks, just a soup spoon. Sometimes there was a thinpiece of meat, easy to cut. Lunch at 10:30am and dinner at 3:30 pm. That’s why I ate alone the first night.
The other inmates had already finished eating.
I’m not a picky eater. The food was sufficient. Meals were short affairs, not much conversation. One
thing that the inmates showed an interest in was the charges against each new prisoner. I was just a couple
of weeks past my twenty-first birthday and was sporting a light beard. They thought that I must be facing
drug charges.
After breakfast, it was time to shave. A turnkey passed a single razor from cell to cell, so that hecould easily keep track of it. The TVs in the hall were constantly on. If inmates wanted to watch a different
channel, they called out, “Turnkey” and made their request. They liked to watch the 6 o’clock news, withparticular attention to crime reports and who had just been arrested, the new prisoner on the cellblock.
I was lucky to have been arrested on a Friday afternoon. Saturday and Sunday were visiting days.
You could have visitors for up to 30 minutes in the morning and again in the afternoon. I had plenty ofvisitors—family and friends. My father, of course, was still at his reunion. Mom visited me each time andbrought my brother Greg along. Mary Neilson had spread the word to catholic Action and AFSC. It wasa short trip from her house in Aiea to Halawa Jail. Our house in Foster Village was even closer, but there
was no direct route. Mom had to go to Aiea to get on the H–1 Freeway. I remember seeing Jim Albertini’s
face talking on the phone on the other side of the wire mesh glass. I repaid the favor later. One of Mom’svisits was cut short, because my friends had arrived earlier. The 30-minute countdown starts whenever avisitor arrives.

ǊǽǽǊ


Recollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

Arraignments and sentence hearings in federal court were scheduled for Monday afternoons. This
year, Monday June 12 was a state holiday. King Kamehameha I Day was moved from Sunday to Monday. A
parade was scheduled to commence at Iolani Palace—just across the street from the Federal Courthouse—and end at Kapiolani Park, on the other side of Waikiki. It was not, however, a federal holiday, so after
lunch another federal prisoner and I changed into our civilian clothes before being escorted by U.S.
Marshals to the Courthouse. Reverse direction, but same procedure as on the day of my arrest, except for
one thing—no leg shackles. Instead, we were connected by a shared waist chain. At the Marshal’s Office
all restraints were removed. We were put in the chain-link holding cell, where we could look down into
the courtyard at the center of building.

Here Comes the Judge
When it was time, we were taken to Courtroom II to face Judge Martin Pence. Judge Cyrus Tavares
was Hawaii’s first federal judge after becoming a state, appointed temporarily prior to nomination, justthree weeks before Vice President Richard Nixon lost the 1960 Election to Senator John F. Kennedy.
Eisenhower officially nominated him ten days before Kennedy’s inauguration. Kennedy nominated Pence
on September 14, 1961. The U.S. Senate confirmed them both a week later. Pence took over as Chief
Judge. Tavares had gone into semi-retirement as a Senior Judge two months before my arraignment.
Although Nixon had nominated Samuel King as his replacement, Senate confirmation was still two weeks
away. His first case would be the trial of the Hickam Three (see page 46).
The trial of the Cathedral 13 (Blair, 2024, 94) had prepared me for this moment. When it was my turn,I knew exactly what to do. Although an article in the next afternoon’s Honolulu Star-Bulletin (Unknown,
13 June 1972) stated that I “plead innocent”, defendants only have three choices: (a) guilty, (b) not guilty,(c) or, occasionally, no contest—nolo contendere. I plead not guilty to both counts and asked to be released
on my own recognizance, effectively reducing the bail to zero. Assistant U.S. District Attorney Eggers
objected. He complained that I had been avoiding arrest. Nevertheless, Pence granted my request andpointed out that if I failed to show up in court, I would be committing a new, separate felony.
I told him that I would be representing myself in court but would like to have a court-appointed legal
advisor, specifically James Blanchfield. I assured him that Blanchfield had agreed, and he granted therequest. Then he gave me two weeks to file any pre-trial motions. When he set the trial date for August
8, I pointed out that he would be presiding over the trial of the Hickam Three on that date15. He was wellaware of that. He allowed the double booking to stand. Apparently, courts overbook to accommodateǊǽǽǊ愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

the possibility of a quick settlement through plea bargaining. I was free to go after signing the necessary
documents in the Court Clerk’s Office. I went home, back to Foster Village.

The FBI had nabbed me on a Friday afternoon when I returned to the scene of my crime. The next
Friday night, James McCord, Jr. and his “plumbers” returned to the Watergate offices of the Democratic
National Headquarters. They wanted to fix one of their bugs and take photographs of hundreds of pagesof documents. They were caught in the early hours of Saturday, June 17, arrested and arraigned the same
day on charges of burglary.
The investigation and the cover-up soon followed. Nixon’s campaign manager John Mitchell had
Stephen King confine his outspoken wife to a hotel room in California and hold her incommunicado. On
June 22, she managed to make one late-night phone call to reporter Helen Thomas before the phone cord
was ripped out of the wall. When she tried to escape five men subdued her, and she was drugged.
Mitchell’s deputy Jeb Stuart Magruder immediately contacted John Dean. They had been in on theoriginal planning (see page 33). Now Dean and John Ehrlichman took custody of papers and money fromE. Howard Hunt’s safe. They met with FBI Director Patrick Gray. He agreed to provide daily updates of
the investigation and accepted Hunt’s papers, at least those that Dean had not destroyed.
Meanwhile Nixon met with White House Chief of Staff H. R. “Bob” Haldeman to discuss plans to
involve the CIA in the cover-up. They wanted the CIA to pretend that Watergate was a covert CIA operationand tell the FBI to back off. Deputy CIA Director Vernan Walters got the FBI to delay its investigation fora couple of weeks, but together with Director Richard Helms refused to put a stop to it. FBI investigators
followed the money trail to G. Gordon Liddy and Hunt. Both were indicted on September 15 along withthe five Watergate burglars.

Back in Federal Court for the District of Hawaii, Herbert Tom was chosen on a rotation basis froma list of private attorneys as my court-appointed attorney. On our first meeting, I informed him that I had
specifically requested Blanchfield. He was willing to agree to a substitution if the court would allow
it. We discussed the case. He was concerned that even if the court ruled that the cards have not been
destroyed, that I would be convicted of non-possession. He must have read the Appeal Court’s decision in
the O’Brien case (376 F. 2d 538). He left me with a question that resembled a Zen Buddhist Koan: “Howcan you destroy a card and still possess it?”Brother Bob was working at Honolulu Book Store and had been enjoying Island life since returningǊǽǽǊ

Recollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movementin June 1971. One day at the Ft. DeRussy section of Waikiki Beach, he just happened to run into the headof the UH Army ROTC Program. Colonel David L. Silver was shocked, when he realized that Bob was
not yet in the army. Some paperwork also surfaced in which Bob had written that he would be unwillingto serve in Vietnam. First the Army told Bob that he was not qualified to be an officer, he would have tojoin the Army as an enlisted man. He pointed out that there were no extra qualifications for officers. He
was either qualified to serve or not. Rank was irrelevant.
Then the Army started to play the Blame Game. They charged him with willfully failing to reportfor Basic Training. They convened a disciplinary hearing or court martial. If found guilty, the Army could
call him up as a private. The proceedings caught the attention of the media—newspapers and radio—at
the same time that my court case was starting to appear in the news. State Senator Joe Kuroda asked his
legislative assistant, Brother Russ, “How many brothers do you have?” To add to the media confusion,
Russ was Vice President of Hawaii Young Democrats and running for the State House of Representatives
in the 19th District (Aiea-Moanalua).
There was also a series of Letters to the Editor from my supporters: Dolly Foster, Mary Neilson, andJim Albertini in June (21, 27, and 29). Bonnie Fackre and Jean Howard in July (3 and 12), even one fromdraft resisters Ko Hayashi and Stan Masui (July 18) stating that they, too, had destroyed their own draft
cards and wondering why they had never been charged.
Two days later, Sidney Leong, State Chairman of the Young Republicans publicly confused Russand me in his own Letter to the Editor (July 20). “Several letters have appeared in support of Jeff Blair,
Democratic candidate for the House, because of his declaration to oppose [sic] the draft system andsymbolically burning [sic] his draft card. … Then again, perhaps, this is the only reason why Mr. Blair isa candidate.” The Honolulu Advertiser printed a correction the next day. That was followed with letters(July 26) from Allison Lynde, President of the Hawaii Young Democrats, and Russ, setting the record
and issues straight. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party were in favor of an all-volunteer
armed force. On July 31 the Advertiser ran a feature article entitled “The Brothers Blair decides each has
a way to help” (Hoyt, 1972).

Any jackass can kick down a barn, but
it takes a good carpenter to build one.
—Sam Rayburn—Draft resisters had been kicking down the Selective Service System’s barn for several years. I hadǊǽǽǊ愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

joined them. Brother Russ wanted to be a carpenter. Even President Nixon, who hated the “jackasses”
had decided to try to build a new “barn” in order to defuse the Vietnam anti-war movement. Shortly after
taking office, he appointed the Gates Commission. Five of the members wanted to build a new “barn”,
five wanted to fortify the old one, and five were undecided. Their final report (Gates, 1970) recommended
establishing an all-volunteer armed force. Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird had, in fact, been hard atwork getting the Joint Chiefs of Staff on board and was carrying out those plans.

Meanwhile on June 26 Herbert Tom had filed motions (see Appendix 5) for a bill of particulars,dismissal of the indictment, and a substitution of attorneys. Assistant U.S. Attorney Eggers asked for moretime. In a different court, Bob Blair successfully absolved himself of any wrongdoing. In the end the Army
had to accept him as an officer or not at all. They decided to release him from any obligation to serve in
the Armed Forces. He joined the Peace Corps as an English teacher and shipped out to Thailand.

A War Crimes Trial
The trial of the Hickam Three (see pages 34–35) proceeded according to schedule on August 8 in
Judge Samuel King’s courtroom. It was King’s first case as a federal judge. Judge Pence (Messman, 2015)
had withdrawn from the case after a shouting match with the defendants during pretrial motions. Jim
Albertini, Jim Douglass, and Chuck Giuli were defended by a team of lawyers that included two lawyers
from out of state. Mary Kaufman and Benjamin Ferencz had been prosecuting attorneys at the Nuremberg
War Crimes Tribunal. The trial of the Hickam Three took about one week. One of the Berrigan brothers,
either Phil or Dan, flew into town to give their support. The courtroom was packed every day. There wasa big public forum every night (Breems, 2022).
During the trial charges were reduced from felonies to misdemeanors16, the maximum sentence from
fifteen years to six months, because the government refused to enter the top-secret files into evidence.
Charges against the driver were dismissed for lack of evidence connecting him to the crime. Like theleafleteers and news reporter Linda Cobal, none of whom were indicted, Chuck Giuli hadn’t entered thebuilding and didn’t necessarily know what Albertini and Douglass intended to do. Albertini and Douglass,on the other hand, were convicted. King sentenced the two of them to one year of probation and a fine of$500. Neither one paid.
Jim Douglass, having resigned his teaching job at the University of Hawai’i in anticipation of several
years of incarceration, returned to his previous teaching position in Hedley, Canada. This unauthorizedǊǽǽǊRecollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

move, of course, was a violation of his probation (Messman, 2015). He was eventually arrested in 1975
at a Catholic Worker conference in Los Angeles. U.S. Marshals brought him back to Honolulu forresentencing. Judge King sentenced him to unconditional probation and stalked out of court.

On September 15, E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy, James McCord, Jr. and the other four Watergate
burglars were indicted by a federal grand jury. Six days later, my attorney and I had our day in court, oneof many to come. Evan Shirley, on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, filed an Amicus brief
and joined Herbert Tom and I in court to argue in favor of the substitution of Jim Blanchfield as my legal
advisor. At the hearing that motion was granted, but the other motions to dismiss one or both counts of theindictment were denied. Blanchfield was officially appointed eight days later.
Mary Neilson helped me publicize such court appearances with press releases. A mother of ninechildren, prematurely gray at the age of 45, she was a human dynamo and a master of multi-tasking. She
chauffeured me around to the offices of the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin and to various TV
and radio stations in her Volkswagen Beetle with her youngest child, Sean, strapped in his baby seat in theback, chatting away about her older children—Nora in New York or David. Sometimes we’d drop in to
see Rosie or Martha at work. I was even invited to the reception for Joey, Jr.’s wedding.
The Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin were happy to get our press releases. It encouraged themseek out information on their own and, perhaps, attend some of the hearings. When their court reporters
had a slow news day, they would check court records. Small articles about rather trivial matters sometimes
unexpectedly appeared. This caused a problem for my parents during the six months of the year that my
grandfather was staying with us (see page 32). Colonel George Blair, a combat veteran of World War I,
was now 93 years old (Blair, 2024, 79–80). The first thing he did each morning was sit back in his easy
chair and read the Honolulu Advertiser. It might upset him to suddenly discover that his grandson, a cardburning draft resister, was in trouble with the law. For that reason, they woke up early and checked for any
articles about the case and clipped them out. Many of them found their way into a second scrapbook thatMom made for me, to which I have been referring while writing this article.
Mary Neilson also arranged for me to speak on October 2 to a class at St. Louis High School thatwas studying Comparative Political Systems. Apparently, they had been discussing my case in class. This
gave them an opportunity hear my point of view and share their opinions in a written assignment. Some
addressed their comments to me. One, in particular, caught my attention:

I think you are right, but I think you should slow down on what you are doing, because inǊǽǽǊ愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

the last school that I went to we had a teacher named James Albertini and he was just likeyou, but now he is in jail.

Yes, having refused to pay his fine, Albertini found himself behind bars in Halawa Valley. It was my turnto visit him. He served a 90-day sentence for contempt of court, but never paid the original $500 fine nor
the additional $250 fine for contempt (Breems, 2022).

In late September I had been ordered to report, not for induction, but for jury duty. I was summoned
to appear before the Honorable Dick Yin Wong on Tuesday, October 10, 1972, at 8:15 am as a prospective
trial juror. Hmm. Another case of involuntary servitude. Should I refuse? Will I be acceptable? Will they
think to ask me if I am or have ever been charged with a criminal offense? We will never know, because
the order to report was cancelled and I was never ordered to report again.
The similarities are obvious, the differences interesting. Nobody registers for jury duty, the names
and addresses come from voter lists. There are no cards to carry or burn in protest. What happens if
someone fails to report? Is it a crime? Interesting questions for further research.

Judge Solomon’s Rocket Docket
As the wheels of justice slowly turned, I continued with my draft counseling activities. Mary Neilson
was even more proactive, often asking me to tag along with her and help with various paralegal projects17.
I, for example, would check the pending criminal docket in federal court for Selective Service cases toreport about them in Hawaii Draft News. She would try to contact the defendants to see if we could beof any assistance. One day we knocked on the door of a Jehovah’s Witness who had refused induction.
He didn’t want anything to do with us, so we left. In mid-October, she and I attended the trial of Lester
Uyeda before visiting Judge Gus J. Solomon from the District of Oregon. There was no jury18. There wasno defense. It was a complete charade.
We arrived in court before the defendant and his attorney. The judge and Assistant District Attorney
were already there, having disposed of the previous case, perhaps19. The court-appointed “defense”
attorney arrived before his client. He and the judge started discussing the upcoming case. The attorney
had prepared no defense and had no intension of presenting one. In that case, said Solomon, he would let
the defendant take the stand and make any statement he wished before sentencing him.
That is exactly what happened, when Uyeda arrived a few minutes later with his mentor Toshi. ToshiǊǽǽǊRecollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

was a kooky local artist known for his large abstract bamboo structures20 on the Manoa campus of the
University of Hawai’i. The defendant was charged with two counts (U.S. v. Uyeda, 476 F. 2d 958): (I)failure to report for induction on 17 February 1971 and (II) refusal to report on April 14.
Uyeda had lost his II-S deferment as a UH student in December 1970, but quickly enrolled in
Leeward Community College, nine days before his Local Board sent him the February 17 order to reportfor induction. On February 4, he requested a I–S(c) student deferment but failed to clarify the date of his
enrollment. Misled into thinking that he had enrolled after the order to report, his Local Board sent him
the other order to report for induction, on April 14. None of these facts were presented at trial. Instead, inan empty gesture of magnanimity, Solomon dismissed the first count. Then he, the prosecutor, or defense
attorney—it doesn’t really matter who—put Uyeda on the stand. Uyeda gave a very short, unpreparedspeech against war. Solomon cut in demanding to know “Who told you to say that?” He was looking
directly at the defendant but referring to the two observers—Mary Neilson and me.
“No one,” said Uyeda, “I thought it up myself, just now.” Then the trial was over, all within a matterof minutes. Solomon immediately sentenced him to two year’s imprisonment, without any stay during theappeal process. In fact, he added an order that the defendant be sent off to prison on the mainland21 without
delay. The U.S. Marshals swiftly whisked Uyeda off to Halawa Jail.
This was the bleak picture of resistance that my mom had painted for me in the summer of 1971
(Blair, 2024, 91–92). My trial was going to fall somewhere between the two extremes of Lester Uyeda’s
sad little affair and the Hickam Three’s grand spectacle. My trial would last a full day before a jury anda couple of dozen spectators. It would be preceded by several days of pretrial motions with a dozen or so
observers. Sentencing would take place in a packed courtroom a full two months after the trial and afteran extensive Presentence Investigation Report by Probation Officer Earnest Lee, including several letterson my behalf. Each turn in the legal process was accompanied by media attention.
After witnessing this travesty of justice in Solomon’s court, Mary secured for Uyeda a competentcriminal attorney, David Bettencourt. The two of us described the collusion before the defendant arrived
and the farce that followed, and Bettencourt went to work. He filed a motion to have Uyeda released.
Solomon denied it without listening to oral arguments. As soon as he was gone and Judge Pence had
returned, Bettencourt convinced Pence to free … Uyeda pending his appeal to the Ninth Circuit (Paulicka,1972). The defendant had spent two weeks in jail. Now he was free and would remain so. On 27 March
1973, Judges Browning, Goodwin, and District Court Judge Taylor from Idaho allowed Bettencourt topresent facts and make arguments that, obviously, had not been put into the trial record (476 F. 2d 958).
They then decided that Uyeda would have been guilty of ignoring the first order to report, had SolomonǊǽǽǊ愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

not dismissed Count I. The Local Board, however, had all the information that they needed to defer
him before they issued the second order to report. Count II should, therefore, have been dismissed. Hisconviction was reversed.

When the year 1972 came to an end, men with lottery numbers from 1 to 95 had been called up
for induction and 49,514 had been inducted. Seven hundred and fifty-nine U.S. troops had been killed.
Selective Service issued a call-up on December 7. It turned out to be the last. President Nixon won
reelection with 520 electoral votes to McGovern’s 17. FBI Director Patrick Gray had destroyed the
documents from E. Howard Hunt’s safe.

1973: Call-ups by Lottery for Men Born in 1953
President Nixon was looking forward to a new era of peace during his second inauguration. On
January 27 the Paris Peace Accord was signed, giving the United States 60 days to pull its troops out ofVietnam. The next day, Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird announced that there would be no more callups. Starting on February 12, American prisoners of war returned home.
As the Vietnam War was coming to a close, however, the Watergate Scandal was just getting started.
The first Watergate trial began on January 8 with five of the defendants changing their pleas to guilty.
Lawyers for G. Gordon Liddy and James McCord, Jr. fought the evidence for three weeks, but on January
30 both were convicted. A week later, four democrats and three republicans were named to the newly
formed Senate Watergate Committee. It would look into the coverup.

By February it was time for me to make a choice about my leave-of-absence. If I tried to extend it
again, Caltech might insist that I take another full year off (see page 33). Feeling that three years would be
too long, I decided to request the court’s permission to return to school. Judge King granted the motion on
February 20 with the comment “We don’t want him to be dumb.” He was trying to inject a little humor, I
suppose, but Mom really resented it. A hearing on pretrial motions was set for March 5.
On March 5 Paul Miguel brought his high school class at MidPac Institute to Courtroom II to observe
the hearing. Colonel Henry C. Oyasato22 testified23 with respect to a motion to dismiss Count II, destructionof the Notice of Classification. The fact that my II-S classification was due to expire on 30 September
1971, a full month before it was burned, was clearly visible on the card (see Appendix 1). I argued thatany duty to possess the card and keep it intact had expired on that date. On the stand Colonel OyasatoǊǽǽǊ

Recollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

explained that along with the extension of the Military Selective Service Act on September 28 (see page28) some new regulations had been enacted and published in the Federal Register. They could not legallytake effect for thirty days. In the interim all processing of registrants, including change of classification
had been suspended. Normal operations were resumed on November 2. The II-S classification was stillvalid on that day. The point I was trying to make seems to have been missed. Due Process under the Sixth
Amendment to the Constitution requires that registrants be given sufficient notice of any laws that they
are required to obey.
There should be no question that old Notices of Classification can be destroyed and disposed of. The
tricky question is when do they become legally old: (a) the expiration date on the face of the card, (b) when
the registrant has been reclassified, or (c) when they get a new Notice of Classification? The government
argued for (b). I argued for (a). Judge Pence sided with the government and denied our motion to dismiss.
We would raise the issue again on appeal. Further hearings for pretrial motions were set for March 12.

Judge Pence would occasionally talk off the record about how the legal system works. He was relaxedand seemed to enjoy the role of teacher. I still remember the principles he explained in three of these mini
lectures: (a) not everyone that is indicted is guilty, (b) the function of appeals courts is to fix the mistakesof district judges, and (c) courts prefer to base their decisions on small, uncontroversial precedents, rather
than tackle large, unsettled issues. He illustrated the first principle by recounting how he himself had once
been falsely accused of a crime.

Although the President’s authority was due to expire at midnight between June 30 and July 1, thelottery continued. Registrants born in 1954 got their lottery numbers on March 8. My brother Greg got thelowest number in our family—186. All four of us boys had been very lucky.
Airstrikes in Cambodia and other supporting operations had continued after U.S. combat troops had
left. In March Nixon indicated that the United States might reenter Vietnam to enforce the provisions of
the Paris Peace Accord. Nixon, however, was facing formidable opposition in Congress.

Pretrial hearings continued, on March 12. The legal issue was selective prosecution. Melvin Sanehira
had burned his cards at the same time as I did. Only one of us was indicted. Numerous men in Hawaii
Draft Resistance had publicly destroyed cards. None of them had been indicted. On March 12 Don Sharp
and John Witeck courageously testified under oath in federal court that they had violated the law with
impunity. They described their illegal actions in great detail. This was my evidence to argue that I hadǊǽǽǊ愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

been singled out for prosecution because of my perfectly legal draft counseling activities for the American
Friends Service Committee. I contended that the charges should thus be dismissed.
When I finished, it was time for Assistant District Attorney Eggers’ rebuttal, but he told Judge Pence
that he would rest his case without any rebuttal. Pence warned him against it. Apparently, I had succeededin establishing a prima facie case. Without any counter evidence, the charges against me would have to bedismissed. Eggers took the hint and brought his own witnesses to court the next day.
Blanchfield and I arrived at court a little late. Judge Pence fined me one dollar per minute, a total of
five dollars. Blanchfield objected, saying it was his fault that we were late. Pence insisted on fining me,
since I was representing myself. He pointed out that Blanchfield could pay the fine, if he wished.
Eggers called three witnesses to the stand: an FBI agent, the State Director of Selective Service, anda former federal prosecutor. I do not recall the content of the testimony given by Colonel Oyasato. The fullcourt transcripts23, however, are available in the Hawaiian and Pacific Collection of Hamilton Library on
the Manoa Campus of the University of Hawai’i.
Special Agent Henry Burns24 explained why Melvin Sanehira had not been indicted. Selective
Service clerks who had witnessed the demonstration were unable to pick him out of a photo lineup. They
identified my photo without any trouble because of my previous visits to their office to inspect public
information. In addition, Melvin’s cards had been more thoroughly burned (see Appendix 1) making themharder to identify. It would have been difficult to prove Melvin’s case25, mine was an easy slam dunk.
Joseph M. Gedan had been an Assistant District Attorney before Nixon appointed District Attorney
Harold M. Fong. He testified that he and some of the other federal prosecutors under the previous
administration had placed cases involving draft card violations, such as Sharp’s and Witeck’s, at the bottomof their piles, and then they never surfaced. He confessed that he had done this without authorizationand had felt a bit guilty about it. Thus, I had not been selected for prosecution. The other cases had
fallen through the cracks provided by arbitrary decisions of assistant prosecutors26. These pretrial motions
continued the next day.
This time the prosecutor arrived two minutes late. Blanchfield immediately pointed it out to thejudge. Judge Pence presented me with a choice: (a) he could fine Eggers two dollars or (b) reduce myfine by two dollars. I did the math, seven dollars for the U.S. Government OR three dollars. I chose threedollars. Then it was time for arguments.
Eggers had successfully countered our contention, but only partially. The arguments in court focusedentirely on the decision at the local level. Even though, the District Attorney’s Office had overwhelming
evidence, Eggers was reluctant to seek indictment, until consulting with the Justice Department inǊǽǽǊRecollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

Washington, D.C. (see page 33). That fact had come up in a private conversation between Blanchfield andEggers, which was later relayed to me in casual conversation.
Unknown to us, Jeffrey Falk (see page 31) had made a similar motion for dismissal. He, too, was a
draft counselor charged and convicted of draft-card violations. The formal decision to prosecute included
not only the Assistant U.S. District Attorney, but also three other three higher-ranking staff members in
the Office of the Northern District of Illinois, and then the Justice Department in Washington. The trial
court refused to hear his arguments. In October 1972, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court ofAppeals affirmed that decision, the convictions, and the sentence by a vote of 2 to 1 (472 F. 2d 1101). Twomonths later, however, they granted a rehearing before the full circuit court. The Falk case and my own
point to the possibility that discriminatory prosecution was occurring at the national level.
We had missed a golden opportunity to challenge the Nixon Justice Department. Judge Pence denied
our motion to dismiss and set the trial date for April 24. On April 19, by a decision of 5 to 3, the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Falk’s convictions and remanded the case back to the district court fora hearing on the motion to dismiss because of selective prosecution (479 F. 2d 616).
On March 21, just two days before the day that was set for the sentencing of the seven Watergate
defendants, Judge John Sirica received a letter from James McCord, Jr. confessing perjury and implicating
White House officials in a cover-up. Watergate was not a CIA operation. The judge made the letter public,
postponed McCord’s sentencing, and handed down provisional sentences to pressure the other defendants
into revealing more information before final sentences were imposed. Presidential advisor John Dean
notified Nixon that there was “a cancer on the presidency”. Within two weeks, he also began cooperatingwith prosecutors.
I returned to Caltech for the first time in two years. Suddenly I was living in a different world, myacademic world. It’s all a blur now, not even a blur, completely erased from my mind. I lived on campus in
Lloyd House, ate on campus, and majored in history, but only remember one course—Physics 2, Quantum
Mechanics, which I later dropped. There was a physics mid-term exam in April, but I had to return to
Hawaii for my trial. I talked to my professor, Richardo Gomez. He told me not to worry and wished meluck.

Then I was back in my world of protest and politics. I stopped in to see Blanchfield. He was very
happy and looking forward to the trial. Eggers had offered us a plea bargain—if I joined the Army, hewould drop the charges. Blanchfield told me how much he enjoyed turning it down and telling Eggers that
we were going to win in court. As always, he was cheerful and optimistic heading into court.
ǊǽǽǊ愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

April 24 was another beautiful, sunny day in paradise. The trial started at 9am and took the entire day.
The first order of business was to select a jury. I wanted the make-up of the jury to be as diverse as possible,
so I suggested waving preemptory challenges. The defense has more of them than the prosecution. Eggers
agreed. Judge Pence questioned the jurors about their connections to the military and asked if they could
be impartial. Only a few were removed for cause, one of them exclaiming that the Selective Service Systemshould be on trial as he left the jury box. Twelve jurors and one alternative were quickly chosen and swornin.
Two of the Local Board clerks, Hannah Kaaihui and Yaeko Morisaki, testified that they saw meburn my draft cards and return them. The cards themselves were entered into evidence. Upon crossexamination, Morisaki, identified the cards and admitted that none of the information on them, except
the first name on the Notice of Classification had been affected (see Appendix 1). When asked to read theinformation, she had no trouble reading the name, selective service number, date and place of birth, theclerk’s signature, the name of the local board, the date of registration, the classification and its expiration
date, the date of mailing, and the advice and warning printed on the back. The usefulness of the cards
for their intended purposes was unimpaired. When the government rested its case, I made a motion fora directed verdict of not guilty on both counts. The cards had NOT been destroyed. Nevertheless Judge
Pence denied the motion.
I took the stand. Instead of questioning myself, Jim Blanchfield was allowed to question me. Then
Eggers cross-examined me. He asked me if I had intended to destroy my draft cards. My answer was no.
I had intended to and did burn them to demonstrate my opposition to military conscription. The fire hadgone out before they were destroyed. I did not try to relight them. I simply abandoned them. In fact, I had,for some time, intended to return my cards to the Local Board. I only decided to burn them when invited
to do so as part of the All Souls’ Day protest. In any case, the message to the Selective Service was thesame—I resign, I am not going to cooperate.
Eggers asked if I understood the law and its consequences. I affirmed that I understood that the
maximum penalty for mutilation or destruction of cards was five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. My
failure to possess the cards was also a violation. I continued, however, to deny that the cards had been
destroyed. That issue had come before the judge and would come before the jury. Eggers called Colonel
Oyasato to the stand for rebuttal. I again made a motion for a directed verdict of not guilty on both counts.
Judge Pence again denied the motion. The jury would have to decide.
Pence gave the jury their instructions. It was about 4 pm when the jury began their deliberations.
An hour later the deadlocked jury requested further instructions on the meaning of “destruction”. ThenǊǽǽǊ

Recollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

Eggers, Blanchfield, and I went to the judge’s chamber to discuss the issue. There was no consensus.
When Pence had had enough, he suddenly stopped the discussion, took the bench, and instructed the jury.
He gave a long rambling explanation that included both the government and defense’s sets of requested
instructions, some dictionary definitions, a legal definition, and some comments of his own referring to
the Weissman case (see page 31). Five minutes later the jury returned their verdict—guilty on both counts.
The young clerk’s voice cracked a little with emotion when he read it. I again made a motion for a directedverdict of not guilty on both counts. Judge Pence again denied the motion.
Eggers gleefully informed the judge that he hadn’t said “the magic words”. Judge Pence dryly repliedthat there was no “magic” in them and continued. He ordered me to undergo a presentence report. I asked
that the sentencing be postponed until I finished the school year. He set a date for sentencing—July 2. I
told him that I would be back in June, but he insisted on that date and demanded that I waive my Right toa Speedy Hearing. I agreed.
One of the jurors followed Mom and I into the elevator. She was haunted by the idea that I was goingto go to prison. I assured her that it was all right. I was ready for it. I had always assumed that I was headed
there. She said that she wouldn’t be able to sleep. Mom took her contact information and kept in touchwith her.
Within a few days I was interviewed by a probation officer. Ernest K. K. Lee filed his five-page
Presentence Investigation Report on May 13 and attached letters on my behalf from Mom, Dad, Brother
Russ, and Steven Kroll. It covered my offense, my family background, prior criminal record27, home andneighborhood, education, religion, physical and mental health, employment, military record28, financial
condition, interests and leisure-time activities.
Back in Washington, D.C., FBI Director Patrick Gray was being interviewed as well—confirmation
hearings by the U.S. Senate. At the end of February, he had admitted providing daily updates on the
Watergate investigation to the White House at the request of John Dean. When the committee found outthat he had also destroyed documents from E. Howard Hunt’s safe, support for his confirmation dried
up. On April 27, he was forced to resign. Three days later, the President’s closest advisors: H. R. “Bob”
Haldeman and John Ehrlichman resigned at the request of President Nixon. Nixon simply fired John Dean.
Act II of the Watergate scandal was about to unfold.
In America May 1 is Law Day. Judge Pence was invited to a luncheon at Pearl Harbor Officers’
Club where he gave a “blunt and hard-hitting speech” to local attorneys and military officers (Milz,
1973). Punishment, rather than rehabilitation, should be the aim of the correctional system. Two days
later an editorial by John Griffin in one of our local newspapers questioned my prosecution, noting thatǊǽǽǊ

愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

the case had come from “the same Administration that brought you the Watergate scandal, the bombingof Cambodia, and so much talk of peace with honor (3 May 1973)”. Mom noticed both articles and added
them to my scrapbook.

In Pasadena, school friends were delighted to see me, assuming that I had been acquitted. I soon
disabused them of that notion, informing them that I was going to be sentenced on July 2. A pink slip for
Physics was waiting in my mailbox. I had missed the mid-term exam and was flunking. I decided to drop
it and take it again later. As always, I concentrated on my studies with a break in the afternoon for sports.
It was a routine familiar from military school (Blair, 2024, 84).
Across the United States, the political climate had changed. The campus unrest of my first two
years of college had been replaced with a deep interest in the drama of Watergate. The Senate Watergate
Committee had opened hearings on May 17. All four TV channels were broadcasting them live during
the daytime, something that hadn’t happened since the Kennedy Assassination (Blair, 2024, 82). After awhile, the four channels agreed to rotate coverage. The hearings were rebroadcast at night on PBS (Public
Broadcasting Service). America was officially “wallowing in Watergate” with Elliot Richardson as the
new Attorney General and Archibald Cox as the Special Prosecutor.
The Court Clerk mailed an official Notice (see the top half of Appendix 8) to remind me of my datewith destiny. At the beginning of June, I flew back to Hawaii.

There wasn’t much to do except wait for July 2. Happily, I got an invitation to accompany Molly
March and a friend on a trip to Maui and Molokai. The Marches were old family friends. We first met
them at Fort Meade, Maryland. Their father, an Annapolis graduate and expert on Russia and the Russian
language, was working for the National Security Agency (NSA). They followed us to Arlington, Virginia
where our fathers worked at the Pentagon and then in 1972 to Honolulu, Hawaii. Their quarters werelocated between Pearl Harbor Naval Base and Foster Village, where we lived after Dad retired from theArmy. Admiral Patrick G. March had three lovely daughters: Molly, Terry, and Peggy. Terry, who was myage, had attended Pershing Hill Elementary School and Gunston Jr. High with me. In fact, I had visited
her at Cornell University in 1970 (see Blair 2024, 88). Molly was a year or two older.
I needed Judge Pence’s permission to leave the Island of Oahu and got it (Appendix 7). It was amemorable trip. The three of us spent two days hiking from the top of Haleakala29 down to the ocean. We
read Winnie-the-Pooh stories around the campfire. Hitched a ride along the north shore of Maui to the
airport. Chartered a small plane to take us to Molokai. Spent a week on the beach on the eastern end of theǊǽǽǊRecollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

island. Then we flew back to Honolulu.
I got a phone call from Don Sharp. He wanted to burn his draft card in protest on the day of mysentencing. I discouraged him from taking such a great risk on my behalf. He and John Witeck had alreadytestified under oath in federal court about their numerous draft card violations (see page 51). I expected
to be sentenced to two or three years in prison but realized that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals mightreverse my conviction, thus vacating that sentence.

On June 25, John Dean began four days of testimony before the Senate Watergate Committee. It was
his word against the President’s. He insisted that President Nixon was well aware of the coverup. They
had discussed it at least 35 times. Dean’s accusations were a sensation, but there was no evidence to backthem up, not yet.
Sunday July 1 the draft was officially over. Young men still had to register with the Selective Service,
but the President’s authority to order them to report for induction had expired. At 3 o’clock the next
afternoon, I was back in Courtroom II with my supporters, including Dana Park, John Witeck, Don Sharp,
Jim Albertini, and Chuck Guili. First up was the Assistant U.S. District Attorney, not Eggers, but William
McCorriston. He recommended a fine of $2,500. I was shocked. What did money have to do with mycrime?
Next it was my turn to speak. I had prepared a speech30, assuming that I would be sent to prison. I
now prefaced that speech by pointing out that I would have the same problem with a fine that Albertini had
had31. I remember praising the courage of draft resister Dana Park, whom Pence had sentenced in 1968 to
six years under the Federal Youth Corrections Act. Acknowledging that I “had acted neither in haste nor in
ignorance of the [draft] law”, I affirmed that I “remained ‘unalterably opposed to [it]’” (Coughlin, 3 July1973).
Judge Pence told me to stay standing at the lectern (Lind, 18 July 1973). He announced that he hadfound an abandoned draft card that had been slipped under the door of his chamber, undoubtedly Don
Sharp’s. It would not, he assured us, influence his decision. Then he began by eliminating the possibilityof probation. “All the probation officers in the world wouldn’t stop you… You would do it all over again”.
Blanchfield, no longer my legal advisor, now my attorney, stood up and said, “This sounds ominous”.
Freedom of Speech, of course, allows judges to sound just as ominous as they like, and Pence continued,
referring to Dana Park. “You just want to join Dana Park. Well, I’m not going to put you where I put him.”
Pointing out that the draft had ended, he declared that he would not feed my “martyr complex. You evenwant the scars32.” Instead, he would fine me $250 for each of the two counts, a total of $500. It was theǊǽǽǊ愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

same sentence as the Hickam defendants had gotten. Like them I had no intention of paying it. Blanchfieldannounced our intention to appeal the conviction.
I went home. In tears, Mom wanted me to drop the appeal and pay the fine. Dad patiently explained
to her that an appeals court could not increase the sentence. There was nothing to lose. The Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals could only affirm or reverse my conviction. I immediately went over to the Marchs’
house to deliver news of the day’s event. Terry asked me if I had a martyr complex. I don’t remember
if I answered her question. Today I would say no. Like any soldier, I took a risk when I challenged the
Selective Service System, but I also kept my head down and tried to keep out of prison.

Ranking Judges
Now the pressure was off. Prison was off the table. I was only facing a fine, even if my appeal failed.
It was all in the hands of the lawyers. Blanchfield and Eggers would be facing the judges of the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
How about the district court judges that I had encountered: Martin Pence, Samuel King, and Gus
Solomon? Solomon’s shameful behavior in the Uyeda case was simply a disgrace to his profession. As
Forest Gump would say, “And that’s all I have to say about that.”
Most of my court time had been spent in Judge Pence’s courtroom. So much so, that Mom came torefer to him as “your judge”. He had the reputation of being a tough judge. The Hickam defendants had
been delighted that he recused himself from their case, and Judge King took over. I, however, came to havegreater respect for Pence after seeing how they both handled the Yamada case (#73–13,269). It happened
as the summer of 1973 was turning to fall, just before I returned to Caltech to continue my studies andawait my appeal.
Calvin Kiyoshi Yamada was a Selective Service violator. He had refused induction. His attorney,
James Blanchfield, wanted an investigator to scrutinize his client’s draft board records, all at government
expense. He decided to ask the court to appoint Mary Neilson and I as the investigators. Needless to say,Assistant U.S. District Attorney William J. Eggers, III was not thrilled with his choice. He wrote a briefin opposition to the motion. It would provide Mary and I, he wrote, another opportunity to advocate draft
resistance, oppose the Vietnam War, and turn the Yamada case into a political trial.
Then it went before the bench, Judge King presiding. He summarily dismissed the motion. One of theinvestigators had recently been convicted and sentenced in federal court. Me, of course. No discussion.
That was the end of it … until Blanchfield took the same motion to Judge Pence’s court. This judge wasǊǽǽǊRecollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

willing to listen. “Why” he asked, “do you want these particular individuals?” Strangely, Blanchfield’s
reason was economic, rather than the quality of the service we could provide. Using us would save thegovernment money. The ball was now in Egger’s court, figuratively speaking. It was an easy slam. The
government was willing to pay a premium. The motion was again dismissed.
As in this example, Pence turned down almost all my motions, but he was fair. He always listened
patiently to both sides before making his decision. Some of his decisions were favorable. He released
me on my own recognizance, appointed an attorney as my legal advisor, granted the motion to appoint
Blanchfield, and stayed my sentence pending appeal. And, of course, his sentence was a very lenient one
for a draft case. Typically, Selective Service violators are sentenced to prison. Fines are almost unheard
of. While researching draft cases, I have come across two examples. One judge, apparently unsatisfied tosimply imprison Vietnam draft resisters for the full five years, also imposed the maximum fine of $10,000.
At the other end of the spectrum, a judge in Arizona sentenced Japanese American draft resisters fromWorld War II relocation camps to a one-penny fine and no imprisonment (Muller, 2023).

Do Not Publish
On Friday July 13, the Senate Watergate Committee unearthed a bombshell when Haldeman’s top
deputy revealed the existence of a comprehensive taping system in the White House. Alexander Butterfield
was called to testify at the public hearing on Monday. Within hours, Haldeman’s replacement as WhiteHouse Chief of Staff ordered the system turned off and removed. Nixon refused to turn the tapes over tothe Committee until ordered to do so by the Supreme Court a year later.
In September, I returned to Pasadena, to my studies, and to the wrestling team as the investigation of the
new Watergate Seven continued, including John Mitchell, H.R. Haldeman, and John Ehrlichman. It would
be March before they would be indicted. President Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator. In
October Vice President Agnew was forced to resign for corruption that began during his time as Governorof Maryland. Gerald Ford was nominated to replace him. Nixon ordered his Attorney General to fire theSpecial Prosecutor. Elliot Richardson refused and resigned. His deputy William Ruckelhaus also refused
and resigned. Finally, Solicitor General Robert Bork was brought to the White House in a limousine andsworn in as acting Attorney General in order to carry out the “Saturday Night Massacre”. Nixon appointed
Leon Jaworski to replace Archibald Cox.
Meanwhile back in Honolulu, James Blanchfield and William J. Eggers, III exchanged legal briefs
that they filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were going to be delivered inǊǽǽǊ愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

late December, and I wanted to attend. I arranged a flight home for Christmas on a jumbo jet that flew atriangular route: Honolulu to Los Angeles to San Francisco to Honolulu. I pulled an all-nighter to finish
a term paper and catch the flight. I was the only customer on board for the leg from Los Angeles to San
Franciso. Unfortunately, San Francisco Airport was fogged in, so we circled for a few hours. When fuelran low, the pilot had to make a choice: return to LA, or land in the fog. We landed. Irene Dobzranski
picked me up and took me straight to the courthouse, but it was too late. Neither had Blanchfield or Eggers
appeared. Blanchfield, with my permission, was looking at land in Australia. A partner in his firm argued
for a reversal of my conviction. Eggers had been injured in a motorboating accident. Another assistant
district attorney defended the government’s case against me.
The Court of Appeal’s decision came out in January, when I was back at school. Elated, Mom madeher first long-distance phone call ever, prohibitively expensive in those days. She knew I wouldn’t pay thefine and dreaded paying on my behalf, imagining that it would damage our relationship. She needn’t haveworried. Blair family ties remained stronger than that.
At the top of the printed decision (see the bottom half of Appendix 8), in capital letters—DO
NOT PUBLISH. At first, I thought it was a gag order, a secret decision. “We are obliged to reverse thejudgement.” The three-judge panel, two circuit court judges and a visiting district court judge, wanted toaffirm the conviction, but couldn’t. Federal prosecutors had made a fatal mistake. My draft cards weremutilated, not destroyed. Both mutilation and destruction are felonies. The penalties are the same, but
the government must prove the charges stated in the Grand Jury’s indictment. Yes, the Grand Jury madea mistake. Did any of the jurors vote against the indictment? The decisions of trial juries are required to
be unanimous, but not grand juries. If grand jury records are available, historians can examine them tosee if their decisions are simple rubber stamps. The trial jury, too, had made a mistake. Those in favor of
acquittal in the first hour of deliberations should have stuck to their arguments and prevailed.
Judge Martin Pence made the same mistake when he denied our motions to dismiss. His musing about
jurisprudence (see page 51), however, prove correct. First, criminal charges can be false—completely orslightly off the mark. They should be scrutinized with care. Secondly, one of the functions of appeals
courts is to fix the bad decisions of district courts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did that in aunanimous decision, even though they didn’t seem happy about the result. Finally, courts prefer to basetheir decisions on uncontroversial principles. By declaring my drafts to have only been “burned at theborders”, they could avoid more difficult questions. It became unnecessary to balance the slight amount ofdestruction or mutilation against the speech element that was recognized in the Supreme Court’s O’Briendecision. Nor was it necessary to decide at what point a Notice of Classification is no longer protected, theǊǽǽǊRecollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

expiration date of the II-S classification stamped on the front of the card, or some other date.
Burgeoning caseloads have forced the Federal Circuit Courts to sort cases out for differing typesof treatment (Wasby, 2004, 67–69). Some are published in the Federal Reporter; increasingly more arenot. The use of unpublished memorandum dispositions (called memodispos in the Ninth Circuit) began
sometime in the 1960s or early 70s. They existed in the libraries of the various appeals courts, identified
only by their numbers—no citation in the Federal Reporter. Citing them as precedent was even prohibited.
The Ninth Circuit had effectively buried their decision in their law library. While the opinion has remained
under the radar for the legal community, it did serve notice to my attorney and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Jim Blanchfield released a statement to the press (Unknown, January 1974), explaining that the conviction
was reversed and expunged from my record. The government could have re-charged me, but decided notto.
The Watergate defendants were convicted and eventually sent to prison. Their co-conspirator
President Nixon resigned in the face of impeachment in August 1974. Vice President Ford became
President and in September granted a “full, free, and absolute” pardon to Nixon (Proclamation 4311). A
week later he established a program of conditional clemency for “draft evaders” and military deserters,
except those that had fled the United States (Proclamation 4313). In March 1975 he terminated Selective
Service registration (Proclamation 4360).
The day after his 1977 inauguration, President Carter pardoned all Vietnam War Selective Service
violators (Proclamation 4483). Then in July 1980, he reinstated the requirement to register and to keep
Selective Service informed of one’s current address (Proclamation 4771). The Selective Service no longer
issues Registration Certificates or Notices of Classification. A “registration card” can be printed once only,at the time of registration. Registrants do NOT have to carry that card, nor is it against the law to destroy
it.

Notes
1

The Second Circuit covers the states of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. The Eighth Circuit is made up of
Missouri, Iowa, Arkansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, North and South Dakota. The First Circuit covers the states of
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine.

2

The very same day that Cousin Bob (Major Robert H. Blair) was evacuated from Loc Ninh in the face of North
Vietnam’s bold Easter Offensive.

3

Criminal case #13,021 is sometimes called #72-13,021 to distinguish it from criminal cases in other years.

4

The original indictment was soon withdrawn and superseded on April 25 by a two-count indictment (see Appendix 5).

5

The standard operating procedure in most criminal cases is for FBI agents to make the arrest and turn the defendantǊǽǽǊ愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

over to U.S. Marshals.
6

Special Agent Henry Burns would later testify during pretrial motions about the role of the FBI in my prosecution.

7

Due to a complicated family situation, Chuck Bollingmo had a choice of family names. He is now better known asCharles H. Smith.

8

I never actually saw the badges and IDs of the FBI agents during my interview (Blair, 2024, 94–95) or my arrest. The
names that I remember and have used here are Agents Bender and Charles Malone.

9Your Rights: Before we ask you any questions, you must understand your rights. You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any
questions and to have him [sic] with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you
before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you will still havethe right to stop answering at any time. You also have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to a lawyer.

10

Waiver of Rights: I have read this statement of my rights and I understand what my rights are. I am willing to make astatement and answer questions. I do not want a lawyer at this time. I understand and know what I am doing. No promises
or threats have been made to me and no pressure or coercion of any kind has been used against me.
11

Since the building of a new federal courthouse, it has become known as the King David Kalakaua Building.

12Interstate H-1 used to designate a stretch of highway that continues straight past Fort Shafter, Halawa Valley, andAiea. Interstate highways in Hawaii, obviously do not connect to other states, but get the same federal funding as otherinterstate highways.

13

The building is now used as a “special needs” facility for maximum security, protective custody, and mentally ill
prisoners. A much larger medium security facility was built in 1987. Federal prisoners used to be housed in Halawa Jail.
Since 2001 they have been incarcerated in the Federal Detention Center located next to Honolulu International Airport.

14

Brown uniforms were for prisoners awaiting trial. Blue uniforms were for those that had been convicted and wereserving sentences of one year or less. Convicts with longer sentences were moved from Halawa Jail to state prisons or tofederal prisons, typically the ones located at Lompoc, California or Safford, Arizona.

15

Judge Pence recused himself during pretrial motions. Judge Samuel King presided over the trial, which began onschedule.

16

Destruction of government property was a felony if and only if the property was worth $100 or more. Otherwise, it
became a misdemeanor. Felonies are crimes where the maximum length of imprisonment is more than one year. Crimes
with a maximum length of imprisonment of one year or less are misdemeanors.

17

She later became a professional paralegal.

18

My recollection here is contradicted in newspaper articles that appeared the following week (see Unknown, 25 October
1972 and Unknown, October 1972), apparently based on Mary Neilson’s press releases and court records. I, however,
have absolutely no recollection of a jury or jury selection.

19

Meyer Eisenberg referred to Solomon’s speedy approach to judicial procedure as a “rocket docket” (Stein, 2006, 143).
Judge John R. Ross called him “the Fastest Gavel in the West”.

20

The structures were well overhead, maybe 10 or 15 feet in height. There may have been some deep oriental philosophyof life behind his work. The University allowed his creations to remain for a period of weeks or months.

21

There were no federal prisons or detention centers in the State of Hawaii. Most Selective Service violators were sent
to the Correctional Institution at Safford, Arizona.

ǊǽǽǊ


Recollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

22

Colonel Oyasato’s name was misspelled on the docket sheet entry for March 5 (Appendix 6).

23

The full court transcripts for the pretrial hearings on February 26, March 5, and March 12–14 and for the trial areavailable in the Hawaiian and Pacific Collection of Hamilton Library on the Manoa Campus of the University of Hawai’i.

24

Agent Burns, you may recall, arrested James Albertini and almost ran into Albertini and I having lunch, while I was
still a fugitive (see page 40).

25

Difficult, but perhaps, not impossible. KGMB-TV had filmed the part of the demonstration where we burned our cards,
and a Honolulu Advertiser photographer had taken lots of photos, one of which was published in Hawaii Draft News (seepage 39). The film and photos would make it easy to identify Melvin. Enhanced images might have allowed verificationof the draft cards. Was Melvin ever questioned by the FBI? I don’t know. If so, they must have been unable to trick him
into a confession.

26

Eggers had had similar feelings, but consulted with his superiors in Washington, D.C. (see page 33).

27

Trespassing 13 July 1971 at an AWOL Sanctuary (Blair 2024, 91). Found not guilty 4 November 1971 (Blair 2024, 94).

28

Registered at Local Board #2, classified I-A, lottery number 209.

29

Haleakala (meaning house of the sun) is a massive volcano that rises 3,055 meters (10,023 feet) above sea level on theeastern coast of Maui.

30

That speech has been lost. I am relying on a combination of (a) my memory, (b) Another Voice, and (c) the Honolulu

Advertiser.
31

James Albertini refused to pay his fine of $500 and was sent to jail for 90 days (see pages 47–48).

32

Pence assumed that I wanted to keep the criminal conviction (the scars) on my record. Convictions under the Youth
Corrections Act are expunged after the sentence has been served. Imprisonment is for up to six years. The parole board,
however, may release these prisoners at any time.

33

The photo of the burned cards at the bottom of Appendix 1 was published in the Honolulu Advertiser, page 2 on
November 3, 1971.

Acknowledgments
I wish to express my sincere thanks to Richard Hough and Paul Tanner for their encouragement and their reactions toan earlier draft. Not all the advice received was necessarily heeded, however, and I retain full responsibility for the final
product, including the documents in the Appendix.
This paper is dedicated to the memories of Mary Neilson (1927–2012), James Blanchfield (1938–1982), Elaine“Woody” Schwartz (1924–1999), Dana Rae Park (1948–2016), an old family friend, Rear Admiral G. Patrick March (1924–2009), and to those who risk either life or liberty to make our world a more peaceful place.

Points of Contact
Any comments on this article will be welcomed and should be mailed to the author at Aichi Gakuin University JuniorCollege, 1–100 Kusumoto-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464–8650 or e-mailed to him at pds.english (at) au.com. Some
previous papers may be accessed at http://www3.agu.ac.jp/~vicks62/jeffreyb/research/index.html.

ǊǽǽǊ


愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

References
Baskir, Lawrence M. and William A. Strauss (1978). Chance and Circumstance: The Draft, the War, and the Vietnam
Generation. Orbis Books.
Blair, R. Jeffrey (2024). Recollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement (Part One: A criminal offense).
The Journal of Aichi Gakuin University Humanities & Sciences, Vol. 71, No. 1/2.
Breems, Matthew (2022). Jim Albertini. Courage to Resist.
https://couragetoresist.org/podcast-jim-albertini
Coughlin, Dianne (July 3, 1973). Draft Card Burner Is Fined $500. Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Douglass, Shelly. A Life Both Comforting and Challenging. In John Dear (Ed., 1996). Apostle of Peace: Essays in Honorof Daniel Berrigan.
Ferber, Michael and Staughton Lynd (1971). The Resistance. Boston: Beacon Press.
Gates, Thomas (1970). The Report of the President’s Commission on an All-Volunteer Armed Force.
https://www.nixonfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/The-Report-Of-The-Presidents-Commission-On-AnAll-Volunteer-Armed=Force.pdf
Gee, Harriet (April 26, 1973). Card Burner Is Guilty. Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Gutknecht, David Earl v. United States, 396 U.S. 295.
Hasbrouck, Edward (2022). The “Channeling” Memo from the Selective Service System (1965). Draft Resistance News.
https://hasbrouck.org/draft/channeling.html
Hoyt, Richard (31 July 1972). The Brothers Blair decides each has a way to help. Honolulu Advertiser.
Lind, Meda Chesney (April 1973). Verbal hangup brings guilty verdict. Another Voice.
Lind, Meda Chesney (July 18, 1973). Blair to appeal draft card case. Another Voice, Vol. 2, No. 6.
Messman, Terry (2015). Street Spirit Interview with Jim Douglass (Part 1). In Terry Messman (n.d.) Jim Douglass andNonviolent Resistance to War and Nuclear Weapons, pp. 11–18. San Francisco Bay: American Friends Service Committee.
https://www.peaceworkersus.org/docs/jim-douglas-and-nonviolent-resistance-to-nuclear-weapons.pdf
Milz, Barbara (May 2, 1973). Punishment necessary, judge says. Honolulu Advertiser.
Muller, Eric (2023). Draft resistance. Densho Encyclopedia.
https://encyclopedia.densho.org/Draft_resistanceO’Brien, David Paul v. United States, 376 F. 2d 538.
Paulicka, Dick (November 8, 1972). Antimilitary but not sorry. Honolulu Advertiser.
Rader, Gary (1967). Draft Resistance. The New York Review.
Silbert, Earl and Bill Causey (1992). Earl Silbert Complete Oral History Package, Oral History Project, Historical Society
for the D. C. Circuit.
Stephen Lynn Smith v. United States, 368 F. 2d 529.
Stein, Harry H. (2006). Gus J. Solomon: Liberal politics, Jews, and the Federal Courts. Portland: Oregon Historical Society
Press.
Texas v. Gregory Lee Johnson, 491 U.S. 397.
United States v. Bruce David Dancis, 406 F. 2d 729.
United States v. Jeffrey S. Falk, 472 F. 2d 1101.

ǊǽǽǊ


Recollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

United States v. Jeffrey S. Falk, 479 F. 2d 616.
United States v. David Earl Gutknecht, 406 F. 2d 494.
United States v. Bradley M. Littlefield, 410 F. 2d 746.
United States v. David J. Miller, 367 F. 2d 72.
United States v. David Paul O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367.
United States v. David M. Rehfield, 416 F. 2d 273.
United States v. Stephen Lynn Smith, 249 F. Supp. 515.
United States v. Lester Masao Uyeda, 476 F. 2d 958.
United States v. Michael Benjamin Weissman, 434 F. 2d 175.
Unknown (June 10, 1972). FBI nabs protester in draft office. Honolulu Advertiser.
Unknown (June 13, 1972). Draft Resister Pleads Innocent. Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Unknown (September 22, 1972). Draft Card Case Denied Dismissal. Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Unknown (September 23, 1972). Draft case motions are denied. Honolulu Advertiser.
Unknown (October 25, 1972). Isle Man Gets 2 Years for Evading Draft. Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Unknown (October, 1972). Draft evader is sentenced to prison term. Honolulu Advertiser.
Unknown (November 10, 1972). Appeal ruling for evasion is reversed. Honolulu Advertiser.
Unknown (April 26, 1973). Draft-card burner found guilty on 2 counts. Honolulu Advertiser.
Unknown (January 1974). Isle draft-card burning conviction is overturned. Honolulu Advertiser.
Vietnam Conflict Extract Data File of the Defense Casualty Analysis System Extract Files
https://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics
Wasby, Stephen L. (2004). Unpublished Court of Appeals Decisions: A Hard Look at the Process. Southern California
Interdisciplinary Law Journal, Vol. 14:67, 67–124.
https://gould.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/ilj/assets/docs/14-1%20Wasby.pdf

Bibliography
Dancis, Bruce (2014). Resister: A Story of Protest and Prison during the Vietnam War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Elmer, Jerry (2005). Felon for Peace: The Memoir of a Vietnam-Era Draft Resister. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Harris, David (1982). Dreams Die Hard: Three Men’s Journey through the Sixties. New York: St. Martin’s/Marek.
Kohn, Stephen M. (1986). Jailed for Peace: The History of American Draft Law Violators, 1658–1985.
Miller, David (2001). I Didn’t Know God Made Honky Tonk Communists: A Memoir about Draft Card Burning, Witchcraft& the Sexual Meaning of Ballgames. Berkeley: Regent Press.

ǊǽǽǊ


愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

第71巻第㧟号

Appendix
Burned cards and statement33… Appendix 1

Four cards, one seems to have expired before being burned.

Indictment…Appendix 2–3

This was the second indictment. The first was withdrawn.

Arrest Warrant…Appendix 4

FBI agents make arrests, then marshals transport the prisoners to jail, to court, and to prison.

Docket sheet…Appendix 5–7

Before being arrested, I saw docket sheet #13,021 for the first 1-count indictment, not this one (#13,032)
with 2 counts.

Notice of Sentencing…Appendix 8 (top)Notice the date, one day after the draft ended.

Opinion of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals…Appendix 8 (bottom)

Not published even though the conviction was reversed.

Note:
In the spring of 2023, I realized that it was time to make a decision. The generation which had lived under the
threat of induction was now living under the threat of death, the destiny of all living things. Resistance leader David
Harris had passed away in February, my brother Bob was losing his fight with cancer. What, I wondered, would
happen to these documents that I had been saving for fifty years? Was the next generation even interested in them?
I e-mailed the newspaper articles to my children. Not much of a response. One of my nephews was a lawyer, so I
e-mailed a page of the indictment (Appendix 3). His response … “This belongs in a museum.”
Absolutely right. I then resolved to publish them as an appendix to my story. Appendix 2–4 and 8 are imagesof my personal copies, undoubtedly the only surviving copies, of the indictment, the arrest warrant, and notice ofsentencing. The opinion of the Ninth Circuit (appendix 8) is an image of my personal copy. The copy of the docket
sheet (Appendix 5–7) was provided by the Hawaii Federal District Court Clerk’s Office, where it is available forpublic inspection and copying.

ǊǽǽǊ


Recollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

Appendix 1

ǊǽǽǊ


愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

Appendix 2

ǊǽǽǊ


第71巻第㧟号

Recollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

Appendix 3

ǊǽǽǊ


愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

Appendix 4

ǊǽǽǊ


第71巻第㧟号

Recollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

Appendix 5

ǊǽǽǊ


愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

Appendix 6

ǊǽǽǊ


第71巻第㧟号

Recollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement

Appendix 7

ǊǽǽǊ


愛知学院大学

教養部紀要

Appendix 8

ǊǽǽǊ


第71巻第㧟号

ᆅሱഈ᎝（2023年㧝月〜12月）
๏Ձඩ֪
〈論文〉
アズマモグラ Mogera imaizumii のウシガエル
Rana (Aquarana) catesbeiana による被食事例（共）
Revisiting the evolutionary trend toward the
mammalian lower jaw in non-mammaliansynapsids in a phylogenetic context.（共）

哺乳類科学 63

㧝月

1

PeerJ 11㧢月e15575ጓ̢ࡺε〈その他〉（翻訳・資料・その他）〈講演録〉ベルタ・フォン・ズットナーの文 『東洋学術研究』（公益財団法人東洋哲学研 㧡月
学と平和運動─トインビー・池田対談の視点 究所）第 62巻第㧝号を交えて─（単）166‒200ࠨʹ޶஥〈学会発表〉
コギトとデカルトの循環〈その他〉（翻訳・資料・その他）〈講演〉デカルトの認識論と幸福論

第 82回日本哲学会大会（早稲田大学）㧡月

愛知学院大学教養部2023 年度春学期教養
教育研究会（愛知学院大学）

㧢月

口頭発表

˨Ձޫᚐ
〈論文〉
等価選択肢数を用いた教養共通テスト分析の 『愛知学院大学教養部紀要』第 70巻第㧟号
一例（単）

㧟月

29‒37

㧣月

131‒148

㧤月

口頭発表

12月

シンポジ
ウム

㧢月

Web 版

юႎ࣐ः
〈著書〉
［改訂新版］通信制高校のすべて：「いつでも、どこでも、だれでも」の学校（共）彩流社〈学会発表〉
昼間二交代定時制高校の設置状況に関する基 日本教育学会 第 82 回大会
礎的研究（単）（オンライン開催）
通信制高校の「多様化」とそのゆくえ─高等 日本通信教育学会 第 71回研究協議会
学校通信制課程の質の確保・向上はいかにし （横浜情報文化センター）て可能か─（単）〈その他〉（翻訳・資料・その他）〈取材協力〉“タイパ” 重視、顔文字チャットに㨃スクールも…通信制高校を選ぶ生徒たち（単）Yahoo! ニュース オリジナル［特集］

ǊǽǽǊ


〈取材協力〉学びのカタチ：通信制という選択（単）新潟日報（2023 年㧣月 14 日、第28896 号） 㧣月

24 面

㧥月

㧤面

〈取材協力〉注目集める通信制高の学び〔上〕 中国新聞（2023年㧥月㧠日、第46401号）
広島県内の現状：進学先に選ぶ生徒 10年で倍（単）‫̄ై۾‬᛼
〈論文〉『方等三昧行法』の位置付け（単）『愛知学院大学禅研究所紀要』第 51 号

㧟月107‒123『釈禅波羅蜜次第法門』における観境と観法（単）『曹洞宗総合研究センター学術大会紀要』
第 24 号

㧢月

91‒96

禅観と止観とのあわい（単）『印度學佛教學研究』第 72 巻第㧝号

12月

58‒64

法華コモンズ仏教学林2023年度前期第㧝回
（常円寺）

㧠月

禅観と止観とのあわい（単）日本印度学仏教学会第74回学術大会（龍谷大学）

㧥月

中国仏教における「禅観」について（単）曹洞宗総合研究センター第 25回学術大会（曹洞宗宗務庁）

10月『日本佛教學會年報』第 87 號㧤月125‒147

㧟月

40‒46〈学会発表〉
天台大師所説の禅観と止観（単）

オンライ
ン発表

ธնีः
〈論文〉
瑩山の衆生済度の原点（単）〈その他〉（翻訳・資料・その他）〈紹介文〉坐禅会紹介 愛知学院大学禅研究 『参禅の道78 号
所参禅会（単）曹洞宗参禅道場の会会報』第〈講話〉不立文字

禅と法話の会 放光（名城公園キャンパス）㧝月〈講話）非思量

禅と法話の会 放光（名城公園キャンパス）

㧡月

ᮓʘజ᪜ᒮ
〈論文〉
ロバート・ペン・ウォーレンの想像力の展開 『愛知学院大学教養部紀要』第 70巻第㧟号とその現代における意義（単）〈その他〉（翻訳・資料・その他）〈書評〉Subjects in Poetry（単）日本英文学会中部支部『中部英文学』第15 号〈書評〉The Routledge Companion to Literature 日本ウィリアム・フォークナー協会
of the U.S. South（単）『フォークナー』第 25 号

ǊǽǽǊ


㧟月

39‒53

㧟月

15‒17

㧠月

115‒119ߴ౿ቘ‫܀‬〈論文〉
キックルールを導入したタグラグビーの学習効果に関する検討─計量テキスト分析を用いた検証─

スポーツ健康科学研究第45 巻

㧢月

25‒38

International Conference on Adaptations andNutrition in Sports 2023

㧣月

ポスター
発表

〈論文〉
新疆ウイグル自治区における強制的な婚姻と同化に関する試論（単）日本現代中国学会『現代中国』第 97号

㧥月93‒106

新疆ウイグル自治区における強制的な不妊手術に関する検証（単）中国現代史研究会『現代中国研究』第 51
号

11月

11‒31

中国現代史研究会2023 年秋季研究集会（谷岡学園梅田サテライトオフィス）

10月

オンライ
ン発表

㧣月

朝刊㧟面

㧥月

ポスター
発表

若山陽一郎『恩送りの法則─仕事で、人生 㧠月
で幸福度を上げる考え方』
アスコム

233‒249

Western American Literature, vol. 58, no. 2

㧥月

143‒62A One-Day Symposium “Writing Climate /Changing Fictions”（中京大学）

㧟月

口頭発表

第 39 回日本アメリカ文学会中部支部大会（中京大学）

㧠月

口頭発表〈学会発表〉Can The BONE program rejuvenate perceivedage?

౺ႎ‫׎‬᪽

〈学会発表〉
ウイグル族の強制労働の疑惑（単）〈その他〉（翻訳・資料・その他）〈取材協力〉核心 中国で施行 恣意的な運 『中日新聞』2023 年㧣月㧝日付
用懸念 改正反スパイ法 外資不安 識者指摘 「台湾統一への環境整備」（共）ᄌజТᮗ〈学会発表〉
些細な親切の送り手が推測する受け手の感謝〈その他〉（翻訳・資料・その他）〈対談〉「特別対談 心理学で考える恩送りの法則」（共）

日本社会心理学会第 64 回大会

ᕏ̢‫۾‬٥〈論文〉
A Fable of the Anthropocene: The Disturbing
Naturalist Humanity in Frank Norris’s The
Octopus.（単）〈学会発表〉
Urban Nature Writing: Literary Imaginations ofEnvironmental Realities from Brautigan to
Mullen.（単）清潔さの暴力に抗して―Frank Norris のVandover and the Brute における匂いと病─
（単）

ǊǽǽǊ


㧤月

口頭発表

11月

口頭発表

㧟月

49‒54

〈書評〉日本ヘミングウェイ協会編『ヘミン 『中・四国アメリカ文学研究』第 59 号
グウェイ批評―三〇年の航跡』『ヘミングウェイ批評―新世紀の羅針盤』（単）

㧢月

91‒96

〈学会報告文〉小森はるか氏による講演（単） ASLE-Japan Newsletter, no. 55

12月

5

㧞月

28‒46

天桂派『伝法儀規』について─附録・天桂派 『愛知学院大学教養部紀要』第 70巻第㧟号『伝法儀規』翻刻資料─（単）

㧟月

69‒80

近世洞門における『梵網経』の学びについて 『愛知学院大学禅研究所紀要』第 51 号
─附録・面山瑞方『永福老人梵網古迹戒題鈔』翻刻資料─（単）

㧟月

55‒86

スペイン内戦の風景とヘミングウェイの嗅覚 第35回エコクリティシズム研究学会大会（単）シンポジアム「環境と戦争」（広島県民文化センター）
アメリカ文学と環境的想像力（単）第 38回語学研究所研究発表会（愛知学院大学）〈その他〉（翻訳・資料・その他）〈書評〉日本ヘミングウェイ協会編『ヘミン 『中部アメリカ文学』第 26 号
グウェイ批評―三〇年の航跡』（単）

ᕏՁᆅࡻ
〈論文〉
近世洞門の伝法作法の一考察─附録『附法道 『愛知学院大学教養部紀要』第 70巻第㧝・㧞合併号
場儀規並所辨用具』翻刻資料─（単）〈学会発表〉
大内青巒居士の仏教と戦争（単）東海印度学仏教学会第69 回学術大会（名古屋大学）㧣月

近世洞門僧における病との向き合い方（単）日本佛教学会第92 回学術大会（駒澤大学）

10月

瑩山紹瑾による僧侶教育について（単）日本仏教教育学会第32 回学術大会（大正大学）

11月『永福会報』令和㧡年度号

㧟月〈その他〉（翻訳・資料・その他）〈投稿〉面山瑞方禅師とその周辺（三）〈書評〉川村覚昭・笹田博道・小池孝範『日 『日本仏教教育学研究』第 31 号
本仏教教育の戦前と戦後の連続性と非連続性─宗教教育の公共性に向けて─』（単）㧟月〈講演〉学びぬいた鎌倉時代の僧─無住道暁の生き方─

愛知県安城市シルバーカレッジ・レベル
アップ講座

㧟月

〈講演〉宗門における「利行」について

曹洞宗総合研究センター教化研修部門勉強会

㧠月〈講演〉徳川家康の宗教政策について

愛知県知立市生涯学習推進講座

㧡月〈講演〉『行持軌範』の成立と展開（㧠〜㧢）

曹洞宗滋賀県宗務所現職研修会

㧥月〈講演〉ともに生きるセクシュアルマイノリ
ティ

曹洞宗長崎県第三宗務所現職研修会

㧥月〈講演〉宗門の伝法式について（㧝〜㧞）

曹洞宗埼玉県祖門会研修会

10月

ǊǽǽǊ


〈講演〉太祖瑩山紹瑾禅師の御生涯について

曹洞宗宮城県宗務所第17 教区住職護持会
役員合同研修会

10月〈講演〉なぜ、仏教で葬儀や供養を行うのか？

大成会（宮城県）勉強会

11月

朝倉書店

㧠月

58‒59

朝倉書店

㧠月

95‒110〈論文〉
東海地方の大学生が持つため池のイメージ（単）『ため池の自然』64号

12 月

1‒4

〈その他〉（翻訳・資料・その他）〈講演〉「小さな湿地の大きな役割：大森奥山
湿地群の自然」

可児市桜が丘大学㧞月ߋႎ‫̿צ‬〈著書〉『シリーズ〈水辺に暮らす SDGs〉2 水辺を活かす：人のための湿地の活用』高田雅之・
朝岡幸彦（編集代表）「アニメーション映画
作品における湿地の表現」（単）『シリーズ〈水辺に暮らす SDGs〉3 水辺を守る：湿地の保全管理と再生』高田雅之・朝岡幸彦（編集代表）「湿地の地理学的調査」（単）〈勉強会〉「東濃・中濃地域湿地群および美佐 重要湿地の保全に関する勉強会
野のハナノキ群生地について」（主催：御嵩町）

㧞月〈講座〉「小さな湿地の大きな役割：文化と自然が織りなす東海地方の水辺」

愛知学院大学公開講座

㧢月，10月〈出前授業〉「大森奥山湿地群について」

可児市立可児東中学校

㧢月〈講演〉「東山の湿地・水辺を再生して地域に 第 37 回東山再生フォーラム どうする？
活かそう」
東山湿地
（主催：名古屋市東山総合公園）

㧣月〈勉強会〉「湿地保全の考え方および美佐野の 日本弁護士連合会公害対策環境保全委員会 㧣月
ハナノキ群生地について」（オンライン開催）〈勉強会〉「湿地保全の考え方および美佐野の 岐阜県弁護士会
ハナノキ群生地について」（オンライン開催）

㧤月〈出前授業〉「大森奥山湿地群を探検しよう！」 私立帝京大学可児小学校

㧥月〈出前授業〉「大森奥山湿地群を探検しよう！」 可児市立桜ケ丘小学校

㧥月〈講座講師〉「湿地の保全」

㧥月

あいち生物多様性担い手育成講座基礎講座（主催：愛知県）〈講演〉「知多半島の原風景としてのため池： 半田市文化財よもやま話
分布・自然・利用」（主催：半田市）

10月〈講座〉「東海地区の湿地の成り立ちと植生」

10月

東海シニア自然大学

ǊǽǽǊ


˹రǽ፬
〈著書〉
近衛典子・福田安典・宮本祐規子編『江戸の実用書』「第三章 第三節 牡丹・グミ・鶴・オウ
ム・モズ・猫・金魚」（単）ぺりかん社〈学会発表〉〈講演〉「近代小説と唐代伝奇─中島敦『山月 東洋文化振興会
記』と「人虎伝」をめぐって」（単）（新日本法規出版㈱本社別館）「日本における唐代伝奇の受容について」（単） 東海近世文学会（名古屋市立大学ミッドタウン名駅サテラ
イト）〈その他〉（翻訳・資料・その他）〈研究ノート〉「古典教育の題材としての日本 『愛知学院大学教養部紀要』第 70巻第㧟号
近世文学の可能性─ ICT 活用教育プログラ
ム開発の研究報告より─」（単）㧢月刊123‒128

㧣月

口頭発表

10月

口頭発表

㧝月

55‒67

᥿ႎ‫۾‬ॖ
〈論文〉「連語論」と「構文文法」：それぞれの言語観 『東アジア国際言語研究』第㧡号（特別号） 㧠月
をめぐって（単）110‒128〈学会発表〉「雅語」と注記される動詞の意味特徴―辞書の記述を参照して―（共）

11月

口頭発表

㧞月

1‒13

㧟月

1‒15

第 13回国際日本語教育・日本研究シンポ
ジウム（香港大学専業進修学院）

ై̢ᅊˢ
〈論文〉
成人子のきょうだい構成と親からの育児支援 『愛知学院大学教養部紀要』第 70巻第㧝・㧞合併号（単）
質的データを利用した授業改善の有効性─計 『愛知学院大学教養部紀要』第 70巻第㧟号量テキスト分析を用いた探索的分析─（単）୫ǽ‫ݼ‬ᅉ
〈学会発表〉
㧢月〈主題討論者〉「海外における韓国語の教師教 2023 国際学術大会
育に対する要望と支援のための提言─日本の 国際韓国言語文化学会・日本韓国語教育学
大学における韓国語教師教育に対する提言
会共同開催─」（愛知学院大学）շరඩޫ〈その他〉（翻訳・資料・その他）〈報告書〉金属錯体の結晶化を利用した不斉増幅現象による触媒的不斉合成法の開発『令和㧡年度 提案型第一期』（共）触媒科学計測共同研究拠点

ǊǽǽǊ


11月

322

Ȋଡ଼᭴᥂጗ᛵȋቼ ࢊ፱ᄻඒ
第  巻論第１・２合併号（通巻第 号）令和㧢年㧝月発行文

Masamichi WASHITAKE：Systemic Functional Linguistics as a Useful Tool for Analyzing Text (Part 1)eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee（ 1 ）Masamichi WASHITAKE：Systemic Functional Linguistics as a Useful Tool for Analyzing Text (Part 3)eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee（ 23 ）Heather DOIRON：Does a Reading While Listening Approach Decrease Anxiety for Language Learners:
Reflections on a Research Topic eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee（ 43 ）早 川 真理子：ハインツ・インス・フェンクルの『幽霊となった兄弟の思い出』における仲介者eeeeeeeee（ 51 ）Mariko HAYAKAWA：Insu’s “Serious Business”: Intermediaries in Heinz Insu Fenkl’s Memories of My Ghost Brother誉

百合絵：『ドン・キホーテ』日本語訳の比較研究──台詞と詩における訳出のバリエーション── eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee（ 63 ）Yurie HONDA：La investigación sobre las traducciones japonesas del Quijote:La comparación de originalidades de los diálogos y las poemas
資田料

R. Jeffrey BLAIR：Recollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement(Part One: A criminal offense) eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee（ 77 ）第  巻論第３号（通巻第 号）令和㧢年㧟月発行文

Sadaharu JO：Lattice Defects of Naphtacene Single Crystals Obtained by Physical Vapor Transport Technique
Investigated by White-Beam X-ray Topography eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee（ 1 ）誉 田 百合絵：固有名詞や言葉遊びにおける『ドン・キホーテ』邦訳比較eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee（ 7 ）Yurie HONDA：La comparación de los sustantivos y de los juegos de palabras del Quijote en las traducciones japonesasと南裕 明：Cohen モデルにおける
Hiroaki MINAMI：
andin Cohen model
資の振る舞いについてeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee（ 21 ）料

R. Jeffrey BLAIR：Recollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement(Part Two: The legal defense) eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee（ 27 ）

ǊǽǽǊ


‫ږ‬ǽኂǽᐐǽጳǽ̿
城

貞晴（本学准教授 ･･･････････ 物

理

学）

誉 田

百合絵（本学非常勤講師･･････ 西

文

学）

南

裕

JO Sadaharu

HONDA Yurie

明（本学講師･･････････････ 数学）

R. Jeffrey BLAIR（本学非常勤講師･･････ 英語）

MINAMI Hiroaki

ǊǽǽǊ


ଡ଼ǽ᭴ǽଡ଼ǽᑎǽᆅǽሱǽ͢ǽ݃ǽ‫׆‬（会長）佐 々 木真（副会長）※糸 井 川

（会計）菅

井

大

地

海

野

勇

三

※河

澤

田

真由美

城

菅

原

研

州

※富

松

井

真

一

※南

合

田

修

泰

弘

北

村

伊都子

貞

晴

菅

井

大

啓

介

中

村

裕

明

地
綾

※本号編集委員፾ǽᪿǽऻǽᜤ『教養部紀要』第 71 巻第㧟号をお届けします。皆様のご協力をいただき、本号には論文㧟編と資料㧝編を掲載することができました。また、報文の編集や確認、また、研究業績の掲載にあたっては、多くの先生方のご協力をいただきました。心より御礼申し上げます。
今後も教養部で行われる研究がますます深化・発展し、『教養部紀要』がより充実したものになるよう、祈念いたします。
（富田記）

ǊǽǽǊ


令和㧢年㧟月20日 印 刷ǽǽǽǽǽǽǽǽǽǽǽǽǽǽǽǽᴥ᫿ֿۨᴦ
令和㧢年㧟月30日 発 行

愛知学院大学論叢
編集責任者
教養部紀要第71巻
佐 々 木真
第㧟号（通巻第204号）
発行者

愛 知 学 院 大 学
教 養 教 育 研 究 会〒470‒0195
愛知県日進市岩崎町阿良池12
電 話 〈0561〉（73）1111（代表）印刷所

株 式 会 社 あ る む
電 話 〈052〉（332）0861

Öïì® ·± Îï® ³
ᴥ×èïìå Îõíâåò ²°´ᴦCONTENTS
ArticlesSadaharu JO：Lattice Defects of Naphtacene Single Crystals Obtainedby Physical Vapor Transport Technique
Investigated by White-Beam X-ray Topography ･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････（ 1 ）Yurie HONDA：La comparación de los sustantivos y de los juegos de palabras del Quijote
en las traducciones japonesas ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････（ 7 ）Hiroaki MINAMI：

andin Cohen model ････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････（ 21 ）Material
R. Jeffrey BLAIR：Recollections of a Grunt in America’s Draft Resistance Movement(Part Two: The legal defense) ･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････（ 27 ）Achievements（2023）･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････（ 75 ）Vol. 71 The Total Contents ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････（ 81 ）PublishedbyÁéãèé Çáëõéî Õîéöåòóéôù
Îáçïùá¬ Êáðáî
²°²´