In 1906, shortly before her suit for legal separation against her husband was heard, Maria Russell published a 100 page book on women’s rights. It was called The Twain One, and was based on the scripture in Mark 10 v.8 (KJV) “and the twain shall be one flesh.”
CTR
believed that it was differences of view on women’s rights that ultimately divided
them, after more than a decade of happy marriage. It was obviously a subject
Maria felt strongly about and she wrote in the book’s forward: “At the request
of many friends who desire to see these thoughts before the public, and
especially before Christians in general, the writer consents to their
publication, although such was not the original intention.”
In view
of this, one might question what the original intention was, since Maria did
more than just consent, she published the book direct from her home address at
607 Birmingham Avenue, Avalon, Pittsburgh.
There
were several reviews in the Pittsburgh newspapers. The first was in the Pittsburgh Press for 31 March 1906.
Hidden away on page 11 it was a short and complementary review mainly quoting
from the preface. Consequently it reads like Maria’s own press release,
concluding: “The book, with so fine a purpose behind it, will doubtless find a
good sale. The price is $1.”
Another
review appeared the next month in the Pittsburgh
Post for 14 April 1906, this time found on page 7:
This
review stated that “it shows much research and has merit” although with the
caveat “we would expressly forbear from commending or disapproving the
positions taken” and “it is evident that some ulterior meaning haunts the
positions assumed.” The book was now advertised as being sold at Pittsburgh
book stores.
A brief
review also appeared in the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette for 11 June 1906, page 5:
This
simplified Maria’s argument down to: “Man is required to obey God, servants are
required to obey their masters, children their parents, but the wife need not
obey her husband because “the twain are one.””
These
small paragraphs tucked away inside the newspapers did not give the work a
great amount of publicity; a casual reader could easily have missed all of
them. However, that was all to change with a lengthy article in The Pittsburgh Leader. And this is the
subject of this article.
The Pittsburgh Leader
for Saturday, 13 October 1906 carried an announcement about a special feature
in the magazine section of the Sunday paper out the next day, Sunday 14 October
1906.
It
announced that Maria’s book – characterized as a “Spicy Essay” was going to be
reviewed by “a Minister.”
That it
was going to be a critical review was made clear by the heading in the Sunday
paper.
The
actual review ran to not far short of three thousand words. A complete
transcript of the review is provided below, but first, who was “the Minister?”
The
answer came out in a hearing in 1907 when Maria’s alimony was discussed. From the
typed transcript of Russell vs. Russell (April 1907) on pages 244-250, CTR was
asked directly if he was responsible for it? The answer was both a Yes and a
No.
CTR had
bought a copy of Maria’s book simply by sending one dollar to her address.
Later a reporter named Cope had called on him and “asked my opinion about the
book.”
He
elaborated on page 245-246 of the hearing: “The reporter called on me,
mentioned his subject and wished me to give him pointers, and I told him I
preferred not to do so, but after the usual manner of reporters he was very
insistent and urged me to give him some pointers; I told him I had no wish to
say anything against my wife in any sense of the word; he said, “Well, you can
give me some pointers.” I said, “I do not mind to give you a few pointers,” and
he said, “Well, I have to go out, and if you will just jot down a few of those
points, I will be very much obliged.” So I jotted down a few points, and I
presume he incorporated them in that article.”
CTR had
been out of the city when the Leader
was published and had not, in fact, seen the article “before this hour” when it
was put to him at the hearing. His comment on reading it then and there was
that the reporter – not him – “had put in a good many of the caustic features
of it.”
The “caustic
features” might include the introductory preamble before the article actually
gets to the review by “a Minister.” Here, Maria’s complaint is summarised:
married women’s advancement in the church and business has been greatly
curtailed by “too frequent maternity.” Putting it bluntly, “greedy and sinful
men” keep getting them pregnant.
Maria
through her counsel accused CTR of being paid for the interview – flatly denied
– of buying up copies of the paper to circulate – also flatly denied – and
Maria when questioned directly accused CTR of interfering with the book’s sale.
How he did this was not specified, but Maria noted that only 300 copies had so
far sold. In reality, on the basis that all publicity is good publicity, the Leader article and review probably
revived sales considerably for a short while. But as with most things, it soon
became yesterday’s news.
Maria had further writings to publish but stated that she did not have the resources to do so. Later in life when she obviously had the means to publish, time had moved on and her views had changed from the general Bible Student position; hence it never happened. (For details, see the article Maria – the Later Years).
https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2025/06/maria-russell-later-years.html
So here
follows the complete text of “Mrs. Russell’s Spicy Book is Criticized.”
(Transcript)
Pittsburgh
Leader
Sunday
Morning October 14th, 1906
Special
Magazine Section
MRS. RUSSELL'S
SPICY BOOK IS CRITICIZED
"The
Twain One" Reviewed by a Local Minister, Who Finds Fault With the Premises
and Conclusions
(Box on page by article)
MRS.
RUSSELL'S SPICY GEMS
"True
happiness, in any human relationship, is incompatible with ignoble ideas both
of tyranny and of servility."
"Paternal
and filial love must respond to each other."
"Any
subserviency to fellow man is a secondary consideration. We ought to obey God
rather than man and this is manifestly right so we must oppose men when they
are wrong."
"The
duty of submission to those in leading positions in the church we regard not in
the light of unquestioning childish or servile obedience, but simply as a
matter of respectful deference."
"The
servant is not in duty bound to please his master in all things except within
the limit of his contract."
"Obedience
of children to parents is expected by God, but for any tyrannical use of this
parental authority to gratify a pride of power in the dominant parties will be
punished by God. The command of obedience does not apply to children after they
come to maturity."
"The Scriptures do not teach domestic
slavery."
"Adam found in woman a companion capable of
sharing all his joys.
"Nothing
in the Scriptures indicates that woman was in the least inferior to man."
"God
created man and woman with equal rights."
"Woman
has become the weaker vessel through sinful man."
"He
(man) often, selfishly taking advantage of the situation rules over her (woman)
instead of treating her as an heir."
Quotations
from Mrs. Russell's book, "Twain One."
(Text of editorial comment followed by review)
Marie Frances Russell, the wife of the
celebrated Pastor Charles T. Russell, the North Side preacher, with congregations
all over the world, has written a book which is of the "woman's
rights" order. Those who have analyzed the work are of the opinion that
Mrs. Russell has undertaken to sustain her position in applying for a divorce
from bed and board and demanding alimony from her husband.
"The Twain One" is the title,
and the green cloth cover binds all sorts of biblical quotations to sustain the
contention of the author that a woman was created equal with man, with the same
rights, and instead of being servile to man, woman was expected to be an heir
of the land with him and share all his joys and returns from the soil. She
launches into a tirade against sinful man and takes the stand that the decline
of woman in influence and wealth is absolutely due to sinful and greedy man
who, taking advantage of woman, has domineered over her to such an extent that
woman is generations off her sphere.
Too frequent maternity, due of course to
greedy and sinful man, has also prevented
from associating with others in the world so that she could progress
mentally as rapidly as man. Instead, she has been compelled to stay in the
house, raise children and, while man is recuperating in the fields and
associating with his neighbors, "gathering strength the while," poor
woman is debarred from what is divinely hers and sinful man is rubbing it in on
her at a great rate. The time, apparently, is ripe for a change of all this,
and woman should step into the church, business and even at home to demand what
has been given her by God and "held out," to use the parlance of the
day, by greedy, sinful, domineering man.
A review of the book by a minister
follows:
"The title of this little volume
would seem to imply a treatise respecting the oneness of union and mutual adaptability
of the sexes to each other so as to produce the greatest amount of harmony or
union. However, the writer does not, in our judgment, seem to approach the
subject from this standpoint, but rather the reverse u 'the twain two.' The
motif appears to be to disprove any special headship of the husband and hence
to establish a double headship in every family. The thought of the writer seems
to be the one that is now so common amongst so-called 'new women.' viz., that
in the divine order men and women were by nature, and by grace intended to be one absolute equality, mentally and physically, but that women, for centuries
oppressed by men, have gradually grown weaker and weaker both in mind and in
body until today that writer reluctantly admits men are stronger both mentally
and physically. That we may do the writer no injustice on this point we quote:
"'They (Adam and Eve) stood on a par
in God's estimation of his handiwork. It is manifest that God created them with
equal rights when he gave the dominion of earth to them both originally' (p.
31.). 'Dr. H. S. Drayton tells us that while woman's brain is smaller than
man's it is larger in proportion to the total weight of the body, and is more
finely organized, so that in his opinion honors are about even.' (p. 37.)
"As proof of an acknowledged feminine
inferiority of strength, mentally and physically, the author says: 'Woman's
natural office of motherhood and home duties connected with it, the training of
children, etc., which, under perfect conditions, as originally designed, could
have brought only happiness and joy, instead under the conditions induced by
sin, brought sorrow and the gradual physical weakening or decline The too
frequent maternity often imposed upon her, regardless of proper conditions, has
undermined the health of women generation after generation, while man, whose
natural occupation has been more in the fields and in subduing the elements of
nature, has gathered from nature more of its invigorating force and thus woman
has become, by far, the weaker vessel.' (p. 36.) 'Thus the natural tendency of
sin has been, not only to render woman a weaker vessel, but also to bring her
under the power of her husband.' (p. 41.) Whatever the author may otherwise be
she is evidently not a logician, as shown by the above quotations: for while
she argues that the sexes are equal and should stand on a par every way she, in
the different quotations, claims that women have become by far the weaker
vessel – hence logically no longer on a par with males.
"But still more illogical is the
proposition above quoted that women have become 'by far the weaker vessel'
gradually for centuries as a result of the recognition of the headship of men.
Would not even a novice in logic recognize the fact that such a claim is an
absurdity; because every girl babe must receive of the strength, the virility
of the father as every boy babe must partake of the weaknesses of his mother.
If males begat males and females begat females we would could understand how
the one sex could, in centuries, oppress and degrade the other; knowing that
this is not the case, but that on the contrary nature equalizes and harmonizes
the strength and weakness of both parents in the children, it follows that the
author has failed to grasp her subject. She may not be aware, either, that in
Europe for centuries women have labored in the fields and thus have employed
the very conditions which she says has made the males superior in mental and
physical strength.
"Far be it from the writer to inveigh
against women or to deny women their proper opportunities. We are even willing to concede, that in times
past, under barbaric and semi-civilized conditions, women had not by any means
the liberties and opportunities they should have had; but are not the same
things true of the other sex? Have not the majority of men in the past been the
merest serfs or slaves? Are we not to remember that only within the past
century has Europe given to the males universal suffrage? Indeed, this boon of
the family was not given to the English males until within a decade, and in
Russia suffrage has only been granted to the males this very year under
restrictions, somewhat similar to those which prevail in Germany, which give
those not property owners a decidedly less voice in than others? Are we not to
remember that free school education in Europe is only the matter of the past
decade? What we should notice in this connection is that just in proportion as
the males have gotten free from serfdom and ignorance in the very same
proportion have the females of the same lands risen to civilization and
education. These points appear to us to be too frequently overlooked by those
studying or discussing so called women's rights.
"It is a fact that the twain are one
by divine arrangement and by their creation. The sexes are so adapted the one
to the·other that injury to either signifies proportionate loss to both. Hence
the safe and sane of both sexes are practically agreed that the Almighty did
not design the sexes to be exactly equal, either mentally or physically, but
better far than this did design an adaptation between them, the one for the
other, represented in the expression ‘a manly man and a womanly woman.’ We feel
sure that the observance of this law of nature brings more joy than any amount
of disputation or endeavor to prove that there is no difference between the
sexes. Very few women would care to marry or expect to be happy with an
effeminate man, and very few men would desire to marry or expect to be happy with
a masculine wife.
“The author lays great stress upon the
fact that women do not receive proper recognition in the churches – evidently
believing that no sex distinction should be recognised in the ministry.
Although the consensus of opinion among Christian people for centuries has been
that the special ministrations of religion should be in the hands of males,
this apparently has no influence whatever with our author. She carefully culls
every reference to women in the Old and New Testaments and makes the most of
these to support her contention, but either innocently or intentionally omits
all notice of the fact that Jesus Christ appointed no female apostles – the
twelve were male and the subsequent seventy sent out were men; not was this
because there were no women interested at this time, nor, as is seemingly
hinted, the women of that day were so much more illiterate than the men. On the
contrary, we have the apostolic statement to the effect that they were
fishermen and tax-gatherers from the humbler walk of life and that, too, it was
distinctly stated by the public in general that they were ignorant and
unlearned men. (Acts IV:13). If ignorant an unlearned men could be qualified
and used by the Christ as his representatives, could not the ignorant and
unlearned women have been equally qualified for His service had He so designed.
But on the contrary, have we not the information that some of the believing
women of the time were of the higher class, styled “honorable women” – women of
station, wealth and probably of education also.” See Luke VIII:3, Acts
&VII:4-12. The same is true of the course pursued by the apostles. We have
no record that they ever ordained women as elders in any of the churches they
organized. Nevertheless they, both Jesus – and the apostles, were prompt to
recognize, appreciate and utilize the womanly talents and qualities of the
believers of that time, as we believe all Christian ministers are disposed to
do to this day.
“The author of the “Twain One” certainly
displays the craftiness of an expert attorney supporting an unjust case when
she attempts to so interpret the words of the apostles respecting the deference
or submission of the wife as the weaker vessel to the husband as the head of
the family. With an attorney’s skill she arranges three different texts in
order, placing first, one, the phraseology of which she could construe
favorably, and then proceeds to apply the misfit interpretation to the others.
For instance the following:
"'Wives submit yourselves unto your
own husbands as it is fit in the Lord." #Col 3:13 'Wives submit yourselves
unto your own husbands as unto the Lord, for the husband is the head of the
wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church; and He is the savior
(preserver, caretaker) of the body. Therefore, as the Church is subject unto
Christ so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.' #Eph 5:22-24
"Again she quotes, 'Likewise, ye
wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.'#l Pe 3:1
"The veriest tyro in scriptural exegesis
would surely be astonished at the cleverness of the misinterpretation of the
first of these texts. The apostle says 'as it is fit in the Lord,' by this
evidently meaning that women in the Christian church were to be submissive to
their husbands as were the Jewish women, and not to consider that because they
were now 'in the Lord' they were exempted from the proper responsibilities of
wives. 'As it is fit' then evidently means, as it is proper, as it is right for
those in the Lord to do. But our authoress gives a twist to the entire matter
in these words. 'We must bear in mind this limitation of fitness. ' (P. 53).
She proceeds to ring the changes of these words fit and fitness twelve times in
her endeavor to nullify the force of the above quoted Scriptures by implying
that the wives are to submit themselves to their own husbands not 'as it is
fit' but rather as the wives may deem fit.
"Surely no sound mind could
understand the apostolic injunctions above quoted to signify that wives were to
be so submissive to their husbands that they would murder or steal or do other
unlawful things. Fortunately, the average men and women have little difficulty
in comprehending the scriptural advice on this subject, vis: that love should
cement the marriage tie, that in the union the twain will be one, that the head
of the united pair is the husband, whose delight as well as responsibility
would be to look well after the interests, mental and physical, of his wife
ready, if need be, to lay down his life for her protection. Fortunately, too,
the majority of women appreciate just such headship as the apostles here
indicate and these are the happy couples who best represent the "Twain
One," and happy are the children who have parents thus mated in harmony
with natural law and scriptural injunction.
"The advocates of 'women's rights'
seem assuredly to be persons in whom the milk of human kindness have soured sometimes through ambition and
sometimes through fallacious reasoning! For instance they often tell us that
the great colleges are for the men, that the women have no such opportunities
for education. They tell us that the legislatures and courts are bound upon the
grinding of woman into the dust, into the mire, and that it is necessary for
women to step forth from the battles of motherhood and the home to battle for
female suffrage and other rights.
"Fortunately for the world, the
majority of the sex reason more soundly than this. Through education or by
observation they learn that their husbands and fathers in the legislatures have
framed most equitable laws in their interest, for their protection and
safeguard, and that the courts are always more lenient toward women than toward
men, and that they fare far better at the hands of a male jury than they would if
tried before a jury of their own sex, and that the public schools and high
schools are as open to the females as to the males, and that a proportionately
larger number of the females than of the males are afforded high school
opportunities and normal school privileges. They learn, also, that there is
abundant provision for their sex in the female seminaries and colleges and that
these, almost without exception, have been established and endowed by the
opposite sex. We conclude that the majority of the sensible thinkers agree
respecting the solidarity of the race – and that in the family and home the
husband and wife are not to be twain, but one, and that in the responsibility
for the family's care both human and divine law are right in holding the male
to be the responsible head and caretaker.
"That the author is not ashamed of
her work is evidenced by the fact that her name appears in the same six
times."
(End
of transcript)