Análisis descriptivo

By the Needle Thou Shalt Draw The Thread And By That Which Is Past See How That Which Is To Come Will Be Drawne On.

George Herbert. 1640. Outlandish Proverbs No.329.

The Society of Friends are in many ways the logical 'developmental alternative' to Puritan sectarian developments and it is the intention of this chapter to show the theological and aesthetic development and inter­ relatedness of Quaker experience. It will become evident that the sect was, and is, the physical expression of religious doctrines in conjunction with physical and temporal locations. This will highlight the importance of the New World in the development of the sects and reinforce the significance of biblical edicts on sectarian responses to cultural pressures.

The documents that provide the bulk of the evidence on which our conclusions are based are the Minutes of Yearly and Monthly Meetings. These represent the official voice of each group, the committees, but record the behaviour of ordinary members whose activities have been brought to their notice. Thus, perhaps uniquely, both theory and practice are represented in the one document. Each Meeting also issued Advices, - the collective advice of that Meeting on the questions under debate by the community. Diaries and Wills, by and large, give the personal voice to historical fact and serve on occasion as indicators of class variables.

It is evident from the subjects covered in the A dvices that the Friends saw all aspects of their doctrine as impinging on their visual persona and therefore a matter of spiritual concern. As the subjects under debate tended to be matters of primary, and therefore recurring concern, notably Plain

dress, these publications were often repetitive but this gives weight to both the 'rule' and the behaviour. The A dvices for 1682, 1694, 1695 and 1711 each warn against the dangers of the World concept of language, manners and fashions, in apparel and architecture, deeming them to be indecent and unbecoming, calculated to please a vain and wanton mind.

A SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR THE PLAIN FORM

As we have seen, initially the Friends enjoyed a clear vision of the means to approach God. Seeking, as had the Puritans, the simplicity and truth of the early apostolic church, the first Quakers attempted to realise this goal through the cause of 'plainness*. Biblically sanctioned, the concept rapidly became a fundamental part of their faith, making itself present in all aspects of their lives. Since this Scriptural precedent [Gen. 25:27; Ps. 27:11; Jer. 48:21; Hab. 2:2; Mk. 7:35] served both Quakers and Puritans in determining the right and proper course of life, many of the same moral concerns and spiritual issues are common to both parties. Where these sects diverge is over the Quaker assertion that Man's logic was subject to a reason corrupted in the Fall: consequently the Word of God, the focus of all religion, could not be interpreted by Man. The Friends allowed only divine intervention, the 'inner light', to give guidance in spiritual matters.1 Where the Puritans practised scriptural exegesis, the Quakers preached Christ, the word of God within them, alive, speaking through them. 2 They took the injunction of Acts 22:14 literally: The God of our Fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldst know his will, ...and shouldst hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his

w itness unto all men of what thou has seen and heard. [My emphasis]

George Fox built on this, declaring that men must "wait on God, in His light to receive His counsel; [for] how else do Friends differ from the World." 5 This reinforces the Quaker assent to nonconformity and in practical terms meant that where the Puritans fragmented into interpretative groups,

Quakers, in theory, were capable of an infinite number of personal spiritual revelations. These might then be expressed in physical terms but, however much they varied from the mainstream of sectarian practice, they were

nevertheless governed by doctrinal belief. This is a fundamental concept in

evaluating sectarian creation that cannot be stressed too highly: these were religions whose members were totally immersed in their teachings but which were also mystic, evolutionary in scope.

The Friends shared Puritan awareness of the spiritual 'dangers' of religious symbolism and professed an abhorrence of idolatry based on the biblical edicts cited in chapter five. However, because of their literal interpretation of the Bible, most took the problem even more seriously. Robert Barclay explained the Friends position on this issue in a discursive manuscript, which, while it deals specifically with the symbolic problems of ‘steeple houses' is representative of the Friends position on symbolism per se:

Why we cannot contribute towards the repairing of the steeple houses, or pay clerks wages.

Reas. Because they are places which were erected for popish and idolatrous worship;...and the root from whence all this idolatry grew, is not so much discovered, much less purged out of these dominions, by them who formerly declared against it in words. Now as we will answer to God, we are to give no countenance or furthermore to idolatry...Was it not solemnly covenanted with the Lord against superstition, for the plucking up of Episcopacy, root and branch?

We have always believed that the Holy Scriptures were written by Divine inspiration; that they are able to make use unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus; for, as holy man of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, they are therefore profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works... As a true understanding of the Divine will, and meaning of Holy Scripture, cannot be discerned by the natural, but only by the spiritual man, it is therefore by the assistance of the

Holy Spirit, that they are read with great instruction and comfort. 4

This fundamentalist position is akin to that of the Amish, and more directly related to Anabaptism than that of the Puritan. The adoption of 'plain' speech was to avoid courting this spiritual disaster through the elaborate oratory of the Puritan preacher. The 'plain' tongue was thus a

symbolic clarifier of both their faith and their links with the Israelites as told by the prophet Zephaniah.5 Matthew 12:36 also ordered "that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of ju d g e m e n t."6 Consequently, exhortations, such as this dating from the last years of the seventeenth century were common in Friends writing and

indicative of the way in which symbols were perceived by the sect:

"Let none despise these lines for their plainness for we were a plain people at the beginning. I know some of the younger sort are apt to be taken with fine words and fashionable language, as with other things in fashion,...this epistle is sent abroad in so plain a dress on purpose...7

It is no accident that the term 'plain dress' is used here, but marks concerns with fashion and appearance as both a distraction of the spirit and a direct offence against biblical edict. Other 'arts' were similarly considered. 'I was minded' said Fox, 'to cry out against all sorts of music, and against the mountebanks playing tricks on their stages; for they burthened the pure life, and stirred up peoples vanity1.8 'Art', if not damned through symbolism, was either a distraction or inessential.

RELIGIOUS ICONOGRAPHY IN QUAKER ART

\

Given the Quaker position vis a vis imagery and the plain form, the stated and actual relationship of Quakerism to material culture is as complex as that of the Puritans. In the main Quakerism evolved as a relatively image- free society determined by such injunctions as that of George Fox in

Doctrinals;

And therefore all Friends and people pluck down your images, your likenesses, your pictures, and your representations of all things in Heaven. I say, pluck them out of your houses, walls and signs, or other places, that none of you be found imitators of his Creator, whom you should serve and worship; anything I say that is in Heaven etc. for mind while man was in the image of God and his likeness, and the woman, they did not make any likenesses, but when man lost the image of God, then they did begin to make such things as the Stock of Nimrod in Ninus's time; then they began to make images of their children, and indulge them that would worship them. At last they worshipped four-footed beasts, as in Romans 1:23, so in the restoration of Jesus Christ

there is no image or likeness etc.

The links Fox makes between biblical teaching and personal practice is unequivocal. Yet with personal faith guided by the 'inner voice' individuals' actions might be sharply divergent and Quakers both practised and denounced almost every branch of the fine arts though conservative Friends were clearly excluded by their beliefs from occupations that were either directly engaged or supported creative activities. However, in a sect that allows personal revelation there would inevitably be compromise and a few portraits do exist. The earliest extant is of William Sewell of Amsterdam, born in 1654, and the author of the first history of Quakerism. While portraiture became more common throughout the first half of the nineteenth century it never approached the levels of mainstream society.

Quaker painters include some eminent names amongst whom are Benjamin West, Edward Hicks and Samuel Lucas. It is not certain whether West (1738-1820) was born a Quaker though by the time he reached adulthood he was a member of the sect. Originally working as a portrait painter in Philadelphia, doctrinal criticism probably caused his moves to New York and later London, where he was to become President of the Royal Academy.

Hicks is perhaps better known for his Quietist faith. Born in 1780 and raised by Quakers, he received the 'inner light' as an adult and lived as an itinerant preacher for almost thirty years. The conflict between the dictates of his faith and his need to paint troubled him throughout his life. He wrote:

If the Christian World was in the real spirit of Christ, I do not believe there would be such a thing as a fine painter in Christendom. It appears clearly to me to be one of those trifling, insignificant arts, which has never been any substantial advantage to mankind. But as the inseparable companion of voluptuousness and pride, it has presaged the downfall of empires and kingdoms; and in my view stands now enrolled among the premonitory symptoms of the rapid decline of the American Republic. But there is something of importance in the example of the prim itive Christians and primitive Quakers to mind their callings of business, and work with their hands

Hicks recognised the power of the image. He also knew the need for man to find gainful occupation and this eventually outweighed his reservations, for for Hicks the visual medium was the one way in which he felt able to express his faith. The resulting paintings are a direct visual expression of the quietist faith. His personal conflict meant that for a number of years he quit painting entirely and farmed in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, but commercial pressures were too insistent. Hicks' experience is evidence that the demands of faith were not insignificant or easily broken. Rather the art of the Plain peoples is evidence of a innate human need, a powerful tool, and the strength of instinct over intellect.

A major theme of Hicks' work was the illustration of the Old Testament text Isiah, 11:6.: "The Wolf shall lie down with the Lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them." Between around 1820 and his death he painted more than eighty versions of this theme, two of which are shown [fig s.14-15].10 Displaying the importance of his faith in his life and work, the image is a metaphor for the tranquillity and harmony that will reign in the approaching Messianic kingdom. The juxtaposition of the Lion and the Lamb is symbolic of the Quaker belief that all men can find God in the religious life.

Fig. 14 Edward Hicks [American, 1780-1849] Peaceable Kingdom, 1826. Oil on Canvas, 32.5" x 41.5" Philadelphia Museum of Art N198427

Further figurative expression of faith is the version of the Peaceable Kingdom known as the 'Kingdom of Conflict', emblematic of the discord of the so-called Hicksite-Orthodox schism of 1827. The rift was between two factions, one rural, conservative, led by Elias Hicks, the other urban, orthodox, influenced by revivalism, a previously felt - but largely suppressed - dichotomy between the mystic "Light Within" and the divine Word. Centred around Philadelphia, Orthodox Friends supported a Quakerism based on faith rather than behaviour.1 1

Fig. 15. Edward Hicks [American, 1780-1849]. Peaceable Kingdom, c.1848. Oil on Canvas 17.12cm x 23.5cm. Philadelphia Museum of Art N198428.

It was the Hicksites, led by Elias Hicks, who sought to remain true to the original 'Plain' tenets of Quakerism. In 'Kingdom of Conflict', properly known as 'The Peaceable Kingdom with Quakers Bearing Banners', Penn signing the Indian treaty is replaced with a pyramid of Quakers holding a banner inscribed with the words "Behold, I Bring You Glad Tidings of Great Joy, Peace on Earth, and Good Will to Men." The group contains several recognisable portraits, including Elias Hicks and George Washington, George Barclay, William Penn and George Fox. The banner, representing Christian liberty and supported by Protestant reformers, extends through the distance to Christ and the Twelve apostles, just visible on a mountain top.12 Another important

theme in Quaker art was the Old Testament story of Noah and the Ark, seen as a parable of deliverance if one heeds and trusts in God. Hicks composition of 1846 was based on a lithograph by Nathaniel Currier, a Quaker preacher/artist, published a few years earlier. Samuel Lucas (1805-1870) also experienced a conflict between belief and inclination. When in later life he reconciled doctrine and need and began to paint, he concentrated on landscapes as a concession to Quaker doctrine.13

Thomas Clarkson, a 'Worldly' commentator recorded the impact on Quaker lives, in the nineteenth century, of this dislike of images. In A

Portraiture of Q u a k e ris m ^he records how

...the Quakers are not in the practice of hanging up prints in frames, yet there are amateurs among them who have a number and variety of prints...chiefly in collections, bound together in books, or preserved in portfolios, and not in frames as ornamental. These amateurs, however, are but few in number. The Quakers have in general only a plain and useful education. They are not brought up to admire such things; and they have therefore in general but little taste for the fine and masterly productions of the painters art... There may be here and there an individual who has had a portrait of some of his family taken, but such instances may be considered as rare exceptions from the general rule.

Clarkson describes 'The Interior of a Slave Ship', a 'Plan of Ackworth School', and 'Penn's Treaty with the Indians', as being the major exceptions to the rule. His observations are borne out in contemporary Quaker journals, one of which, the biography of William and Mary Howitt, records;

Self denial was Samuel Bothams rigid rule of life for himself and for others. No picture was to be seen in the house; he feared pictures might be made objects of delight and idolatry. [He]...actually burnt a brilliant painting of

flowers.1 3

However, as the nineteenth century progressed there was a general softening of Quaker attitudes, with Friends commissioning portraits and the spread of the pastime of fashioning portrait silhouettes. A number of these may be seen in the collections of the Salem Historical Institute in New Jersey, [fig .1 6 .]1 6

Fig. 16. Portrait Silhouettes, c. 1840-45 Salem Historical Society.

This change was viewed by the more orthodox as symptomatic of a waning faith. In 1847 a Yearly Meeting deplored "..the increasing desire there seemed to be for the possession of portraits and pictures; things utterly at variance with the well-known principals of (our) body."

Though British Quakers were not to experience the schism of the American Friends concern on this matter was felt on both sides of the Atlantic. In March of the following year the British Friend printed a long extract from the Philadelphia Friend, on 'Biographies and Portraits'.

Sorrowful it is, that even some of conspicuous and influential station, have actually ‘sat1 for their portraits; and this, not for the hasty moment of the Daguerreo-typist (questionable as even this prevalent indulgence is), but patiently awaiting the slow business of the limner. Shallow indeed must be the religion of him who knows not that in himself, as a man, dwelleth no good thing...We cannot suppose that our primitive Friends would for a moment have sanctioned so vain and weak an indulgence.

present practice to the early apostolic church. Even as part of the sect moved away from strict doctrinal adherence, others held those tenets as strongly as their forebears. A controversy raged for some time over the inclusion in Barclays' Apology of 1849 of a picture of Ury Mansion, the family home, with 'hard-line' Quakers perceiving a danger of 'exalting the c re a tu re '.17 Similarly the reviewer of a 'Memoir of Richard E. Tatham',18 1862, reprimands the editor in doctrinal terms for the inclusion of a portrait of the subject. He argues that,

Indeed we have no unity with the application of photography in this direction, because of its inevitable tendency to foster personal vanity;...the extent to which it is now carried among Friends..(is)..proof of the inroad of a Worldly spirit.

A counter in the next issue from a James Backhouse of York, argued that a 'photograph cannot foster vanity in the dead'. The argument was very much one of personal conscience with the November issue of the British Friend

recording the soul-searching undergone by one Rachel C. Bartram of