confesses), because her father thought him not of sufficiently good social class. Only 100 or 200 years ago, fathers must frequently have pronounced decrees of divorce on their children's love affairs. Well, a couple who had an exaggerated regard for public opinion would in fact believe they were divorced. It would be pointless to adopt the language of the Report, and say, “Although the judge cancelled the reciprocal legal rights and duties he did not concern himself with any deeper bond,” so far as they were concerned. Possibly, but the parties themselves would never believe it. If public opinion said they were divorced, they would never dare to think anything else, or behave in any other way. If the parties are not conscious of any deeper bond, or if conscious of it have not the courage to act as though it were true, to all intents and purposes it does not exist.
In contrast two people who trusted each other absolutely would say to one another, “What does that evil man in fancy dress think he is doing. Of course we are married; we know it's true, everyone else knows it is true. This is just a rape, and nothing he says can possibly make us unfaithful to one another”.
Most people, I imagine, are betwixt and between; they might say something like this to each other, “Darling, do you think we can possibly continue living together? Of course we want to, but do you think we dare face all the hostile criticism? Would it not be better to bow to authority? We would continue to be devoted friends, but it would be terrible having to live in defiance of all public opinion”. They would not in fact have to live in defiance of all public opinion; quite a slice of it would side with them. But it is being starry-eyed to think that all public opinion would side with them. They would have to put up with a good deal of vicious criticism; but the moment people allow fear to creep into their thinking, they tend to over-estimate the difficulties.