Washington Post -- Rev. "Jellyfish" R...

by Alleymom 22 Replies latest jw friends

Alleymom

Hi ---
Although I am pretty new to this board, I've been reading about JW issues for a long time, around 13 years. I have an old Washington Post article in my files, from May 4,1906, that I have never seen anywhere on the internet.
The article is titled "Rev. Jellyfish Russell" and it is a very sarcastic commentary on Russell's infamous jellyfish statement, made during his court trial for divorce.
I copied the article from microfilm in a university library, and unfortunately it does have scratch marks, but the words are quite plain.
Last week when I was doing an altavista search I came across one of Tom Tallyman's webpages. I decided to send him my scan of the Washington Post article. With his wacky sense of humor, I knew he'd have a good time with the jellyfish theme.
If you're interested in seeing what Tom came up with, Sf posted a link to the jellyfish article in the Tallyman Gallery thread:
http://www.intrex.net/talley/JellFish.html
I think it's been lost in the traffic here on this busy board, so I am reposting it, since I think Tom's creative genius deserves a wider audience.
The Post obviously had a different style and tone back in the early part of the 20th century. This would be considered pretty heavy-handed sarcasm today. The Proclaimers book refers to "charges designed to make it appear that he [Russell] was an immoral man" in in the chapter on hateful persecution ("Objects of Hatred by All Nations", see pp. 645-646.) I am sure they must be alluding to the jellyfish statement and the testimony concerning Rose Ball. The Proclaimers book makes a big deal of the fact that Russell never actually committed adultery. But upon reading the Post article and the court testimony, it's clear that Russell did make a bizarre statement comparing himself to a jellyfish.
The sad thing is that the Post's tongue-in-cheek comments about other adventurous gentlemen in the congregation aspiring to be jellyfish, too, seems almost prescient in light of the sexual abuse cases which have come to light.
Here is the text of the article:
The Washington Post: Friday, May 4, 1906.
The Rev. Jellyfish Russell
We seem to have lost the trail of that Pittsburg divorce suit in which the Rev. Charles T. Russell has been figuring as a defendant. The reports do not reach us as regularly as we could wish. We have missed a great many important details, therefore, and indeed, we now fear that the straight story, complete from first to last, will never come our way.
This is to be regretted on general grounds, and then particularly because the chronicle began so entertainingly and with such promise of useful revelation as the facts developed. When the Rev. Charles T. Russell made the opening statement in his own defense he riveted the attention of the entire reading public. “I am like a jellyfish, “said the reverend culprit; “I float all around and I touch this one and that one, and if they respond, I embrace them.” Who will deny that this alluring overture opens many visas to the disciples of psychical research? The Rev. Russell is the founder of a new faith. He calls his congregation the “Russellites.” He doesn’t believe there is any hell except right here on earth, and this doctrine he preaches to a very zealous and devoted congregation. We gather, too, that he monopolizes the jellyfish business in his capacity as head of the church. He floats around among the faithful, touching them here and there. Those who respond he promptly embraces. When they don’t respond, that is, presumably, his idea of hell.
As we have already explained, the story has not come to us consecutively. It happens, therefore, that we have been compelled to put two and two together. The Rev. Russell says he’s like a jellyfish; that he floats about, touching his lady parishioners whenever he gets near enough, and that when they “respond” –whatever that may mean—he embraces. He adds that the only hell he knows of or believes in is a strictly earthly hell, from which we conclude that he finds devils only among those who do not “respond” when touched. The particular case which precipitated the divorce suit appears not to have been at all hellish. In that instance the jellyfish touched one Rose Ball, who must have “responded” very promptly, since Mrs. Marie Frances Russell, the plaintiff in the divorce suit, was an eyewitness to the embrace which followed.
But, upon the whole, this new faith, “the Russellite,” seems to possess a great many of the elements of popularity. Sooner or later, of course, the higher officials of the church, and perhaps a few of the more adventurous gentlemen of the congregation may conclude that with a little practice they might become pretty active jellyfish themselves, and that would inevitably lead to dissension. For the present, however, we are inclined to mark up the Russellite propaganda as a winner. Of course, it’s a pity that the jellyfish’s wife came on the scene just at the critical moment. These accidents will occur, however, even in the most carefully arranged schemes of exaltation. The great truth remains that the Rev. Jellyfish Russell has opened up a mighty attractive pathway to the higher life, and that barring unforeseen catastrophes he will get there with enviable frequency.

Marjorie Alley
Dutchy

Russell - just an old pervert, admittedly!
Justin

To get the context of the statement which was put into Russell's mouth by the Washington Post, look at a copy of the court transcript found at http://users.skynet.be/awsid/eng/paws003e.htm .
Russell did not make this statement before the court. The statement supposedly was made by Rose Ball to Mrs. Russell, who then repeated it to the court.
XJW scholar James Penton, in his book "Apocalypse Delayed," has stated that Russell apparently had such a low libido that he didn't even consummate his own marriage! (p. 35) If any of you know James personally, you might ask him for some input on this.
I feel there's enough to clobber the WT with, without digging up old Russell scandals that may or may not be true.
Justin
Alleymom

Justin --
Thanks for the link; for a copy of the court transcript that doesn't have quite so many typos, see:
http://www.intrex.net/tallyman/list7_3.html
You may be right that the Washington Post erred in saying the jellyfish remark was repeated during the opening statement; they certainly admit very freely that they have not received all the details of the case. However, the portion of the transcript given at those websites does not include the opening statement, so it is impossible to be certain. It would be interesting to see how the trial was covered in contemporary Pittsburgh newspapers.
I feel there's enough to clobber the WT with, without digging up old Russell scandals that may or may not be true.
No one has to use this information to "clobber" the WT. Personally, I feel that old newspaper articles like this are part of the historical record and should be preserved, especially since relatively few libraries maintain newspaper archives that go back that far. Since I have never seen the Washington Post article anywhere on the internet, I decided to make it public.
Interestingly enough, in the many years that JW's have been visiting our home, it is the Russell material that has provoked the strongest visible reaction. Last time, one of the men couldn't believe the photos I handed him of Russell's gravesite. He kept interrupting his partner (who was giving my husband a standard JW spiel) and exclaiming, "Look at this!"
Regards,
Marjorie
messenger

It appears Pastor Russell had a lot in common with Bill Clinton. All Rose Ball needed was a blue dress and Pastor Russell would have not been able to wiggle out of this one. While it seems evident Rose was no child at the time, from sister Russell's testimony the good pastor "did not have sex with that woman," on the other hand, Rose confessed to her, "Rose has told me that you have been very intimate with her, that you have been in the habbit of hugging and kissing her and having her sit on your knee and fondling each other, and she tells me you bid her under no account to tell me, but she couldn’t keep it any longer."
So while the "Channel" was not actually getting stanky on his hang down, it appears he was getting oral assistance from at least a couple of attractive young women. It also appears this may have continued in the "special work" being accomplished in England. No wonder sister Russell lived in a marriage without intimate relations, the poor pastor did not have the ability to spread the "good news" among so many jellyfish. If you read his rebuttal testimony carefully you will find he never actually denied the jellyfish statement he danced around it. Bill Clinton would be proud.
----------------------
The testimony is as follows:
By Mr. Porter:
Q. You understood the ruling of the Court? You are to tell what you stated to your husband that Rose had said, and his reply to you.
A. I told him that I had learned something that was very serious, and I didn’t tell him right away. I let a day elapse, until I felt I had control of myself and would talk, and then I told him that I had something very serious to tell him about this matter, and he said: "What is it?" and I said, "Rose has told me that you have been very intimate with her, that you have been in the habbit of hugging and kissing her and having her sit on your knee and fondling each other, and she tells me you bid her under no account to tell me, but she couldn’t keep it any longer. She said if I was distressed about it she felt she would have to come and make a confession to me, and she has done that."
By the Court:
Q. What did he say?
A. He tried to make light of it first, and I said, "Husband, you can’t do that. I know the whole thing. She has told me straight, and I know it to be true." Well, he said he was very sorry: it was true, but he was sorry. He said he didn’t mean any harm. I said, "I don’t see how you could do an act like that without meaning harm."
Q. What year was that?
A. In the fall of 1894.
By Mr. Porter:
Q. Did you state to your husband at this meeting any endearing terms?
A. yes, sir.
Q. What were they?
A. I said, "She tells me that one evening when you came home" - I asked her when did these things occur. I said to him, "She says they occurred down at the office when she stayed down there with him in the evenings after the rest had gone, and at home at any time when I wasn’t around."
Q. Now, about the endearings terms.
A. She said one evening when she came with him, just as she got inside the hall, it was late in the evening, about eleven o’clock, he put his arms around her and kissed her. This was in the vestibule before they entered the hall, and he called her his little wife, but she said,"I am not your wife," and he said, "I will call you daughter, and a daughter has nearly all the privileges of a wife."
Q. And what other terms were used?
A. Then he said, "I am like a jelly-fish. I float around here and there. I touch this one and that one, and if she responds, I take her to me, and if not, I float on to others," and she wrote that out so that I could remember it for sure when I would speak to him about it. And he confessed that he said those things.
Counsel for respondent moves the Court to strike out the testimony of the witness in relation to the alleged misconduct between Mr. Russell and this girl, Rose Ball, which she says she discovered in 1894, the libel specifically charching that the offences of which she complains began in 1897.
By the Court: You have not mentioned that in the libel. I will grant the motion and strile out that testimony. You must begin your testimony about seven or eught years ago.
Bill of exceptions sealed for libellant.
By Mr. Porter:
Q. This suit was brought by you in April 1903, and we will be compelled to confine the testimony to what has happened subsequent to April, 1896, a few days one way or the other is not material.
Alleymom

Messenger --
Although the testimony was struck from the record because the events occurred prior to the dates being considered in the case, it should be noted (as was pointed out to me just now by Tom Tally), that the statements WERE made UNDER OATH.
A. One evening I spent the evening downstairs, and our library and our bedroom were next to each other upstairs on the second flour, and I spent the evening downstairs reading, and I went upstairs about ten o’clock to my room, and I supposed that he was either in the library or had retired, and when I went up there I found that he was in neither place, and I stepped out in the hall, and I found that he was in his night robe, sitting beside Miss Ball’s bed and she was in bed. On other occasions I found him going in there and I found she called him in and said she wasn’t well and wanted him in, and I objected to this, and I said that it was highly improper, and I said "We have people about the house, and what kind of a name will be attached to this house if you do that kind of thing?" and he got angry.
Q. You state that you found him doing this at other times. How often after that?
A. I found him a number of times, I don’t remember how often.
Q. In her room?
A. Yes, sir. And I found him in the servants girl’s room as well, and I found him locked in the servant girl’s room.
Q. Did he make any explanation why he was in the girl’s room?
A. No, he did not; he just got angry.
Q. What did you say to him about this conduct, and what did he say?
A. I said to him, "We have a great work on our hands," and I said, "in this work you and I have to walk very circumspectly before the world, and if you are going to do things like this, what will happen? Suppose you are all right, don’t you suppose people will talk about things like this?" and I said, "I am not satisfied with it," and he said he wasn’t going to be ruled by me. But I felt distressed about that.

It would be interesting to know whether there is any record of Rose Ball's reaction to the court case. I understand that she married E.C.Henninges, who was Australian Branch Manager of the International Bible Students Association. He was part of the big split that occurred in 1908. So maybe Rose was in Australia at the time of the court case.
I'd like to see contemporary Pittsburgh newspapers from the time of the trial, but the university library I used to get the Washington Post article doesn't have any Pittsburgh papers from that long ago.
Regards,
Marjorie
Justin

Messenger,
All you have done is quoted from the court testimony to which I provided a link. You have not supplied any evidence that there was a second woman involved other than Rose Ball. You have not supplied any evidence of a sexual scandal in England, merely asserted it.
Just so folks will know, I am an XJW, not a current one, but I have a thing for Russell.
Justin
dungbeetle

From his own writings, and court records, it can be shown clearly that Russell was a fraud. He bilked people out of literal fortunes. He had delusions of grandeur beginning in his late teens (this is typically when these things begin)that grew worse the older he got.
He began to be so esteemed in his own eyes that according to himself "God and I understand each other". His megolamania grew to the point where he stated that you could read his books instead of the bible and still be saved. He was the only person in the world who could interpret the writings of God.
Put another way, he was Christ on earth.
And Maria Russell could not help but watch the man she loved deteriorate from an intelligent being to a complete religious fanatic reduced to measuring the Great Pyramid of Gaza for signs and portents of the future---since God had stopped talking to him.
Maria tried to save him. She tried to do more of the writing, and have him do more of the traveling. He would have none of it. He turned on her finally ---as all religious fanatics do when thwarted,and medically undiagnosed and untreated. For a complete study of no less than three personality disorders, one only need to read the Studies in the Scriptures 3, 4, and 5 and 6.
The man was no less than a complete lunatic, a liar and a con man. (He lost every lawsuit he was involved in except two as far as I could tell) Like so many of his kind, he likely did not start out that way; but absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Russell was nothing without Maria. Turning on her, he ruined his own best chance of any future happiness. He died lonely, and miserable, and misunderstood, and sick, and in pain. And to top it all off, his dream of the Watchtower was shattered the day Rutherford took it over. And after his death, he was betrayed by Rutherford, who, while admittedly building up the Watchtower into a billion-dollar industry, has burnt to a cinder all of Russell's life's dreams for his business.
What goes around comes around.
In 1975 a crack team of publishers was sentenced to death by a judicial commiteee. They promptly escaped from the cult and now live life on the run. If you have a problem ... and if you can find them ... maybe you can contact the A--postate Team"
Alleymom

Dungbeetle --
And Maria Russell could not help but watch the man she loved deteriorate from an intelligent being to a complete religious fanatic reduced to measuring the Great Pyramid of Gaza for signs and portents of the future---since God had stopped talking to him.
Maria tried to save him. She tried to do more of the writing, and have him do more of the traveling. He would have none of it. He turned on her finally ---as all religious fanatics do when thwarted,and medically undiagnosed and untreated. For a complete study of no less than three personality disorders, one only need to read the Studies in the Scriptures 3, 4, and 5 and 6.
Powerfully and compassionately written! What a contrast between your depiction of Maria and the one in the Proclaimers book, where she is absolutely villified.
I've been looking for more information on Russell's belief that he was the man with an inkhorn in Ezekiel 9. That's an extremely disturbing comparison for someone to make, IMO.
The man with the inkhorn is told to "go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it."
And then the others are told to "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark..."
If Russell actually believed THAT is what he was called to be, it's a chilling image.
Thanks,
Marjorie
Alleymom

I was just looking at one of the Bible Students' sites.
They claim that Russell took the stand the next day and denied ever making the jellyfish remark. Since I have only seen partial transcripts of the court trial, I do not know whether or not this is true.
http://www.pastor-russell.com/life/immoral1.html
Marjorie

Washington Post -- Rev. "Jellyfish" R...

Share this