Now is the time to comment. This comes down tomorrow.
Note: If you have skipped
the Introductory Essays, please return to them and read them. Doing so will put
the remainder of this volume in context.
1. Foundation
Russell
wrote a flurry of letters to counter Barbour’s speculations. And having decided
to start a new paper to give a voice to their established doctrine, he sought regular
contributors.[1] We have profiled all of these
but Albert Jones in volume one of this work. Jones came from a fairly well-off
family and was a ‘clerk’ in one of Russell’s stores. Instead of being a mere
clothing salesman, he seems to have had accounting and management
responsibilities. We find him not much later opening a thriving clothing store
of his own and pursuing other business interests.
the rest of this post has been removed.
5 comments:
If this is coming down tomorrow, just some very quick thoughts from memory as there is not time to research and reflect.
A very enjoyable and useful chapter.
Some odds and ends. Maria continued to say she was co-author to the end of her life – see her newspaper obituary. That doesn’t make it correct of course.
The boy she was accused of assaulting had the surname Knorr. No – there is no connection with later Watchtower personnel, but I did find the fact amusing.
You quote from Russell vs Russell several times. Suggest you put the date for the quotes – there were two hearings, 1906 and 1907.
You also quote from the Paper Book of Appellant. This dates from 1906 but contains the same material as the 1906 typed transcripts. Suggest you stick to one or the other for the references. From my experience most collectors only have the typed transcript. A personal note – when I received a decent copy of the Paper book back in the 1990s, my daughter as a teenager was into book binding and did me a very nice bound copy with an embossed scales of justice on the cover. It is staring at me from the shelves as I write.
Thank you Bruce. In keeping with previous articles, this was fascinating and informative. Every time I read this blog I learn something new and valuable.
Forgive me if this seems overly critical, but the only thing that I felt unsure about was the comment that "Russell believed that on becoming one flesh with her husband, a wife’s personality was subsumed into his." This may have been the case, but I wonder on what basis you state this? Can the statement be supported or is it just an opinion? If the former, a reference would be useful. If the latter, might the statement be better left out?
All good wishes,
Gary
It would have to be extreme for me to consider something overly critical. I added a footnote and suggested a starting point for further research.
The paper book and the typescript transcript do not contain duplicate material. Some things appear only in one or the other.
While the paper book has extra material, all your quotes from it are also found in the 1906 typed transcript. However, on examination I see that you have quoted exclusively from the paper book for the 1906 hearing, but then from the typed transcript for the 1907 hearing (because there is no paper book extant). If you add 1907 in brackets after footnotes 8 and 11 (as you have done for footnote 21) it would deal with my query.
Post a Comment