Iowa
History Project
____________________________________
~~~*~~~
______________________
The true
explanation of many of those Quaker manners and customs which have always been
considered peculiar was expressed by Thomas Clarkson over a hundred years ago
in these words:
The reader
should always bear in his mind, if the Quaker should differ from him on any
particular subject, that they set themselves apart as a christian community,
aiming at christian perfection: that it is their wish to educate their
children, not as moralists or as philosophers, but as christians; and that
therefore, in determining the propriety of a practice, they will frequently
judge of it by an estimate, very different from that of the world. (424)
Without
question the chief outward feature which has always distinguished the Quaker
from his fellows has been his manner of dress. The broad-brimmed hats or
scuttle-shaped bonnets, and the plain grey clothes(425) of peculiar
cut, were, at the outset, primarily a protest against the extravagance of the
age of Elizabeth and James I, when “the dressing a fine lady was more
complicated than rigging a ship of war”.(426) Before long the same concern for simplicity in dress found its
way to America; and in the records of the New England Yearly Meeting of Friends
may be found the following direction to its members:
That all men
Friends, both old and young be careful not to Imatate the vain Fashions of the
World in wearing their hatts set up on three sides (with Ribins broads or
Bunched) nor powder the hair to be seen, nor are thee Neck cloath Long hanging
down or twisted through the Button holes; nor bigg superfluous, or superfluity
of holes, nor bigg Buttonholes, or places wrought in Imatation of holes, nor
cross Pocketts, nor Capes on their Coates. Nor wide Laped Sleaves, nor gathered
Skirts, drawn in Foulds like the vain practice of the world. Nor unsutable
linings of Gaudy Coulors, nor the Breeches too Strait, nor bigg Unbecoming
Shubauckles.(427)
This antipathy
toward showiness accompanied the Quaker on his westward migrations. Indeed,
allowing for the natural changes from
generation to generation on grounds of “decency and comfort”, one could see in
almost every Iowa Quaker community those who bore in nearly every detail, aside
from silk stockings and knee breeches, the appearance of the Quakers was due,
perhaps, more to the natural limitations attendant upon pioneer life than to
matters of conscience or custom; but this is far from the truth. To the Quaker
mind costume had a distinct significance and meaning. This was his badge which
was both to distinguish him from other men and to protect him from the evil
influences of the world; for, thought he, no Quaker wearing this well-known
costume would sully it by appearing in questionable places of company, nor
would evil men tempt such to do wrong. The wearing of the coat of peculiar cut,
therefore, found its way into the Society’s discipline; and the children as
well as the grown folks were required to don the garb, being carefully
instructed as to its moral value and meaning.
Again, the
wearing of the Quaker hat had long been a puzzle to the outside world. Are its
broad brim and high crown of really grave concern? Why would not the Quaker
remove his hat in the presence of ladies or men of note, or in his own meetings
for worship? As with other curious Quaker customs, this, too, had its meaning.
To lift or doff the hat was once a sign of servile regard, or at least of
personal respect. With his firm belief in the absolute equality of man, the
Quaker continued to wear his hat, seeing no reason why he should remove it even
during a sermon, for such came from the lips of a man; but when he addressed
God in prayer, then all arose, removed their hats and stood uncovered before
one supreme being.
Another custom
which marked the Quakers as peculiar was their use of the pronouns “thou” and
“thee” instead of the pronoun “you”—which, it was said, came to be used on
account of man’s desire to be flattered.(428) In England, “thou” was the form of address of a lord to a
servant, of an equal to an equal, and likewise expressed companionship, love,
permission, defiance, or scorn; while “ye” or “you” was the language of a
servant to a lord and expressed compliance, honor, submission, or entreaty.(429) The Quakers
insisted upon the use of the former terms in personal address; and they would
not use the latter. Against this custom priests, and officers, and nobility
stormed, and Quakers by the thousands were thrown into prison for insolence and
contempt; but to maintain their convictions of human equality they willingly
suffered in silence. Naturally, as the Quakers spread throughout the world they
continued to use both at home and abroad this simple form of address, which to
them is full of historic meaning.
Following this
use of terms of address came others, and for similar reasons. The term “Mister”
was rejected on the ground that it was but “Mater” corrupted, and savored of
servility; and instead the Quakers addressed people by their given name, as
John or Mary—though they had no compunctions about using an official title such
as President or Governor, since this usage was sanctioned by the scriptures.
(430) Furthermore, the common salutations of “good morning” or “good-bye” were
like-wise rejected; for, said the Quakers, “all times are good in the
providence of God”. In place of such expressions they simply inquired after
each other’s interests with such a query as “how art thou?”, or in parting they
said “farewell”.
Peculiar in
these respects, the Quakers have been singular in others. At the time of the
rise of the Society funerals were occasions for pageantry and worldly show in
honor of dead. Against all this the Quaker sense of propriety naturally
revolted, since to them a funeral seemed an occasion for deepest reflection. As
time went on a general order or system for such occasions was adopted and
became a fixed part of the Quaker discipline. In Iowa the procedure was very
simple. The body of the dead was placed in a plain board coffin and borne from
the home to the meeting-house in silence, the attending relatives and friends
showing no outward signs of grief by means of crepe or “mourning habits”
(clothing). When the coffin was placed before the assembled audience, a period
of silence ensued, though this might be broken by anyone at any time with
fitting exhortation or prayer. In due time the coffin was then borne to the
open grave, where a pause was again observed—this time primarily to call the
attention of all to “the uncertainty and short continuance of life, and the
wisdom there would be in a preparation for death”.(431)
In the
beginnings of the order in England, the Quakers, refusing to accept the
services of the established church, buried their dead “in their gardens, or
orchards, or in the fields and premises of one another”.(432) But as time
went on they secured their own burying grounds, in which members were interred
without expense, the burials being made in regular rows in order of death
irrespective of family ties. This system long prevailed, being followed,
indeed, during the early years in Iowa. In the early days gravestones were not
used—though a careful record was kept of all burials. But it appears that by
the middle of the nineteenth century the Indiana Yearly Meeting had provided in
its discipline that “if a plain stone [native to the country] should be set to
the grave, it should not exceed twelve inches in height or width, and contain
only the name, date of the decease, and age”.(433) Then came a more liberal provision in the
discipline adopted by the Iowa Yearly Meeting in 1865, limiting the size of
such gravestones to “not to exceed two feet in height’, and allowing “such
slight additions as may be desired, simply to define the relation of the
deceased”;(434) while now
there are no restrictions imposed by the Iowa Orthodox Friends.
The manner in
which the Society of Friends long held its members to circumspection in
temporal affairs and to communal harmony is also interesting. Once a year the
following “Query”, as the basis of operations, was read in both the Preparative
and Monthly Meetings and answered in writing:
Are Friends careful to live within the bounds
of their circumstances, and to avoid involving themselves in business beyond
their ability to manage; or in hazardous or speculative trade? Are they just in
their dealings, and punctual in complying with their ability to manage; or in
hazardous or speculative trade? Are they just in their dealings, and punctual
in complying with their contracts and engagements; and in paying their debts
seasonably?(435)
Furthermore, it was provided that where there
existed any “reasonable grounds for fear I these respects”, the overseers were
to deal with such persons “seasonably”, and proceed as conditions seemed to
require. It was due largely to this oversight or supervision for generations
that the “Quaker’s word was considered as good as his bond” in money matters.
In like manner, every precaution was used by
the heads of the church to see that differences or misunderstandings among the
membership did not find their way to the courts of law. When such difficulties
did arise, the party who felt himself aggrieved was expected to “calmly and
kindly, request the other to comply with the demand”; and if refused, he was to
take with him one or more of the overseers and in their presence repeat to the
offending party his demand. Then, if the difficulty still remained unsettled,
the parties concerned were required to choose a number of impartial Friends as
arbitrators, and mutually agree by bond or written agreement to abide by their
decision. A full and fair hearing was then given to the parties in the presence
of each other, whereupon the arbitrators after mutual consultation apart gave
their united opinion. If either of the parties refused to abide by this opinion
he was to be “complained of” and dealt with in the usual manner of procedure by
that body, even to the extent of disownment.(436) In any case, to proceed at law a member was
required to first secure the consent of the Monthly Meeting after a thorough
investigation of the case; and t o do so without such consent, whether he was
right or wrong, was in itself a disownable offense.
The attitude of the Quakers relative to music,
dancing, the theater, and fiction, is also worth noting. It is a well known
fact that until recent years (and then the change was only among the progressive
sect the Quakers have been a songless people except in their homes. Not that
the Friends have ever been insensible to music as an art, but hey opposed it
because of the excessive amount of time consumed in acquiring proficiency in an
art which administered to purely aesthetic pleasure. So far as music in their
meetings for worship was concerned, the very thought was incompatible with
their idea of waiting upon the Lord in silence for His divine direction.
For
far more serious reasons did the Quakers discard dancing, the theater, and
fiction. To them, the gaiety of the ball room and the movement of men and women
in close bodily contact seemed to be the most conducive means for awakening the
human passions and evil desires. To this objection were added the unseemly
hours usually kept by dancers, together with the physical exhaustion which
followed, the vain attention given to attire, the jealousies and envy aroused
in the bidding for personal attention, and the evil excesses which so
frequently attended such occasions. These, one and all, they held to be ill
calculated to foster and preserve the more sensitive promptings of the soul, or
the purity of the mind; and in consequence dancing was early placed under the
ban in their discipline. In like manner the Quakers from the time of George Fox
to the present have held theater-going to be a diversion warranting disownment.
The intrigue and trickery without due punishment so often portrayed, and the
unnatural excitement and feeling aroused almost invariably disqualified the
habitual attender, so the Quakers conceived, for the more substantial and
particularly the religious attitude of mind, and so it could not be
countenanced.
While not condemning all fiction, that of a
light, worthless, and trashy character was among them scrupulously guarded
against. All through the early years in Iowa each of the Monthly Meetings
maintained a committee to inspect the books and papers that came into the
homes, and to advise against any that might appear to be harmful. To encourage
good reading, large numbers of books were sent to these western settlements by
interested Friends in the East and in England, so that almost every Monthly
Meeting had a library of the standard Quaker works, free for the use of all;
and, as indicated by the records, they were widely read and appreciated.(437)
To be sure, most of the manners and customs
once peculiar to the Quakers have almost disappeared among the Friends in Iowa,
and the rigid application of the policy of disownment for trivial breaches of
order has broken down. Still, to a large extent, “plainness in dress and
address” is practiced among the Wilburites and Conservatives of this State.
Among the Orthodox body, the plain Quaker costume and the “thou” and “thee” are
the exceptions rather than the rule, and seldom are either observed among the
young; while the matter of amusements, though still discussed,(438) is but little
regulated by the church.
Notes
424- Clarkson’s A Portraiture of Quakerism Taken from a view of
the Education and Discipline, Social Manners, Civil and Political Economy,
Religious Principles and Character, of the Society of Friends (New York,
1806), Vol. I, p. 64.
425- The Quaker drab was made of the plain white wool, undyed; while
the Quaker grey, of which the men’s clothes were almost always made, was
composed of the white wool mixed with some black wool, undyed.
426- Rowntree’s Quakerism, Past and Present (Philadelphia,
1860), p. 141, quoted from Pictorial Histroy, Book VIII, p. 632.
427- Taken from notes by Clarence M. Case on the Minutes of New
England Yearly Meeting, Vol. I, 1683-1789.
428- Clarkson’s A Portraiture of Quakerism, Vol. I, p. 280
429- Webster’s International Dictionary, see the work “thou”.
430- Matthew XXII: 21; Romans XIII: 7; I Peter II: 17.
431-The Discipline of the Society of Friends of Indiana Yearly
Meeting, 1854, p. 30.
432- Clarkson’s A Portraiture of Quakerism, Vol. II, p. 27.
433- The Discipline of the Society of Friends of Indiana Yearly
Meeting, 1854, p. 31.
434- The Discipline of the Society of Friends of Iowa Yearly
Meeting, 1865, p. 80.
435- The Discipline of the Society of Friends of Indiana Yearly
Meeting, 1854, p. 82.
436- The Discipline of the Society of Friends of Indiana Yearly
Meeting, 1854, pp. 27-30. Also The Discipline of the Society of Friends
of Iowa Yearly Meeting, 1865, pp. 86-89.
437- As early as 1839 the Salem Monthly Meeting received from the
Cherry Grove Monthly Meeting, Indiana, eighty-eight volumes, including eighteen
titles. Such gifts continued from time to time to such an extent that the Salem
meeting divided its library in 1842 with the meetings at Cedar Creek and
Pleasant Plain.
438- See the Report of Committee to Consider Question of
Amusements I the Minutes of Iowa Yearly Meeting of (Orthodox) Friends,
1912, pp. 71-73.