Did Russell Separate From and Later Divorce His Wife?

 

A poster in a forum that appears to no longer exist, made the following claim::

"Charles Taze Russell separated from his wife Maria and later divorced…without a scriptural basis."

Another, among many other false claims concerning Russell, made the following statement: "In court he claimed to be a Greek scholar [The truth is that Russell never made any such claim in court or out of court], yet in court he could not identify the Greek alphabet.  He lied under sworn oath and proved himself a perjurer.  [Russell never proved himself to be a perjurer.] In court it was discovered that he divorced his wife and gave his wife alimony."

Another claims "There are transcripts of his trail when he divorced his wife, because she accused him of groping other women. And his tombstone is a pyramid with the masonic symbol. [The pyramid is not Russell's tombstone, nor does it have any masonic symbol.] You can google the images."

Did Russell separate himself from his wife? No!

Did Russell later divorce his wife? No!

Actually, it was Mrs. Russell who separated from her husband, and and it was she who later filed for divorce; the court decision actually amounted to a legal separation. Brother Russell, of course, had no control over what his wife sought to do.

Here is some pertinent information from Joseph Rutherford's A Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens concerning this matter:

Without notice, [Russell's wife] voluntarily separated herself from him in 1897, nearly eighteen years after their marriage. For nearly seven years she lived separate and apart from him, he furnishing her a separate home.

There is much more that could be said, but this gives a summation.

The Wikipedia article on Charles Taze Russell correctly reports:

Maria Russell filed a suit for legal separation in the Court of Common Pleas at Pittsburgh in June 1903 and three years later filed for divorce under the claim of mental cruelty.... She was granted a separation, with alimony, in 1908.

Rutherford, in his book mentioned before also stated:

It has been remarked by a number of lawyers who have read the record in this case that "no court has ever before granted a separation upon so slight testimony as appears in this case."

***

There never has been an absolute divorce of either of the parties.

While in Ireland in the year 1911, Russell reported an event that is related to this:

The questions were of the usual order and were answered fully and promptly and to the apparent satisfaction of all the audience except the "Y.M.C.A." rowdies. One of the questions was inspired by an attack made on me there recently by the Rev. Dr. Torry. It was, "Is it true that you are divorced from your wife?"

I replied that my topic was, "Which Is the True Gospel?" and that my home affairs and my relationship to my God were my personal affairs. Nevertheless I would answer the question. "I am not divorced from my wife. The decree of the court was not divorce, but separation, granted by a sympathetic jury, which declared that we would both be happier separated. My wife's charge was cruelty, but the only cruelty put in evidence was my refusal on one occasion to give her a kiss when she had requested it." I assured my audience that I disputed the charge of cruelty and believed that no woman was ever better treated by a husband. The applause showed that the audience believed my statements. -- Watch Tower, December 1, 1911, page 436.

At any rate, it is apparent that Mrs. Russell was never actually granted a full divorce.