BIO: Elizabeth Gurney Fry, Quaker helper of prisoners (12 Oct 1845) ELIZABETH GURNEY FRY, QUAKER HELPER OF PRISONERS (12 OCT 1845) This series includes biographical sketches of about ten Quakers. Most sketches are accompanied by sections on various topics related to the Quaker movement. A Table of contents, enabling the reader to find material on various Quakers and various aspects of Quakerism, can be reached by clicking . A reading list, sorted according to topic, can be reached by clicking . Elizabeth Fry was a Quaker born more than a century after the founding of Quakerism by George Fox, and some of the initial energy of the movement had ebbed. A bit of background is in order. $$$ QUAKER TABOOS From their beginning, Quakers followed certain rules which tended to make them conspicuously different from their neighbors, and often aroused hostility and suspicion. On the basis of Matthew 23:8-12, the Quakers held that all are equal in the sight of God, that a Christian ought to call no one master except Christ, and that signs of deference to any fellow sinner are inappropriate. Thus, they refused to practice what they called "hat honor". They took off their hats to pray, but kept them on when addressing employers, judges, noblemen, or the King himself. (Note that in those days a man normally wore his hat indoors and out, so that the difference between Quaker usage and common usage was noticeable indoors and not just on the street.) This got them into considerable trouble, since in social situations they would be considered to be insulting the persons they met, and in court they could be jailed for contempt. Similarly, they used what they called "the plain speech." Older English usage (what we may call Stage 1 English) is "thou, thee, thy, thine, thyself" for the second person singular, and "ye, you, your, yours, yourselves" for the second person plural. This usage is found consistently in the King James Bible, and has the advantage of enabling the translators to distinguish numbers in the translation where they are distinguished in the original Greek or Hebrew. Thus, for example, in Luke 22:31-32, we read: + And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to + have you [plural, meaning the disciples], that he may sift you + as wheat: But I have prayed for thee [singular, meaning + Simon]. Ideally, a translation should be ambiguous where and only where the original is, and the use of Stage One English helps the King James Bible to pass this test. What we may call Stage 2 English (found, for example, in Shakespeare) uses "you" in the plural for all social situations, but in the singular uses "thou" for someone whom the speaker would ordinarily call by his first name, and "you" for everyone else. Thus, "thou" is informal or intimate or suggestive that the person addressed is inferior to the speaker, while "you" is formal or deferential. ("Thou" is retained for God, perhaps because religious language tends to change slowly.) Quakers used "thou" to everyone addressed singly, and thereby offended many, who thought it highly discourteous. The Quaker reasons were twofold. First, to address one man as "you" and another as "thou" suggests a difference in rank, whereas the Scriptures teach us that all are equal in the sight of God (Matthew 23:8-12). Second, to use a plural pronoun when addressing a single person is to be untruthful. The fact that no one is deceived is irrelevant. (The reader will note a similar usage in French, where "tu" is used to address a single person whom one would ordinarily call by the first name, and "vous" is used for the formal or deferential singular and for the plural in all situations. The same usage is found in Finnish, in the Scandinavian languages, in Russian, in Spanish of Shakespeare's day, and doubtless in other languages of which I know nothing. German and modern Spanish also distinguish the intimate from the formal, but the formal singular is not simply the plural. Now that we have Stage 3 English, in which the "you" form has completely taken over, and most persons never say "thou" to anyone, the plain speech has lost its original rationale, and most Quakers have abandoned it. [NOTE: Many Quakers, instead of the standard forms "thou art, thou wast, thou hearest," etc., use forms like "thee is, thee was, thee hears," etc. I once assumed that the speakers were trying to imitate King James usage and getting it wrong through lack of an ear for syntax. But then I met a Yorkshireman and discovered by listening to him (what I might have learned from reading Eric Knight's THE FLYING YORKSHIREMAN and LASSIE COME HOME) that the "thee is" forms are standard Yorkshire dialect to this day. And, since Yorkshire was an early stronghold of Quakerism, this explains the usage perfectly satisfactorily.] Quakers did not bargain over prices, whether buying or selling. A Quaker wishing to sell (or buy) a horse would name what he thought was a fair price, and if the other party would not agree, he would simply wish him well and walk away. The issue was truthfulness. If I am willing to sell the horse for fifty dollars, and I begin by asking sixty, then I am hoping to deceive the prospective buyer about what I am willing to accept, since if he knew that I will take fifty if I have to, he is not about to pay sixty. Quakers did not greet anyone with, "Good morning!" since that implies that some mornings might be better than others. In fact, every morning is a gift from God, and is therefore completely good. What we make of it is something else. On the basis of Exodus 23:13, Quakers did not use words like "Thursday," or "March," because "Thor" and "Mars" were the names of heathen gods. Instead, they said "Fourth Day" for Wednesday, and "First Month" for the first month of the year (which in England was March until 1752, when England adopted the Gregorian Calendar). Quaker astronomers used the terms "First Planet," "Second Planet," etc. instead of "Mercury," "Venus," etc. Quakers did not take oaths, not even in court. This was a serious disability, since it meant that they could not appear as witnesses, and could not normally recover stolen goods (since they could not swear that the goods under dispute were theirs), and that they could not take loyalty oaths to the King when required. Since a Quaker who came to the attention of the authorities in any way might be called on to take a loyalty oath, and be subject to imprisonment if he refused, this principle caused the Quakers more trouble than almost anything else. The early Quakers had no objection to alcohol or tobacco. Fox drank wine and cider and strong beer, and smoked a pipe. Eventually, however, most Quakers came to perceive their use as undesirable. For example, In 1757 the American Quaker Joshua Evan wrote: I received a plain, gentle intimation, as in a silent language inwardly spoken on this wise: "Use no more rum; it is a great evil in the country; and thou shalt have peace in declining it." This seemed to try me closely.... I had heard of some who were said to have died instantly when they had drunk cold water, for want of rum in it. In addition, Quakers in the latter 1600's came increasingly to favor "plain" dress, which meant nothing ornamental--no collars on coats (compare with this century's "Nehru jackets" and "Mao jackets," which omitted collars for similar ideological reasons), no lace, no bright colors, etc. The plain dress consisted of bonnets, long dresses of dove gray, and a white scarf folded about the neck for the women, collarless coats in a drab color and broad-brimmed hats for the men. Everything that was not somber was forbidden. (Later, when Quakers were not unanimous in their dress code, they were classified as "plain Quakers" or "gay Quakers.") Margaret Fox, widow of George Fox, and from 1652 to 1702 the most influential Quaker woman, called this a "silly poor gospel." She pointed out that Christ had told us that God will provide us with clothing, just as He clothes the lilies of the field (i.e. anemones), and that these flowers were brightly colored, more spectacular than "Solomon in all his glory," not a dull gray. For many years, however, her view of the matter did not prevail. (On the other hand, there is something to be said for the plain Quaker dress, in that, like the garb of a nurse or nun or clergyman, it marked the wearer as a person who had made certain commitments. The Quaker writer Brayshaw tells of a man he knew whom several working men followed to his place of business and asked to take care of some money of theirs, though they knew nothing about him except that he wore the Quaker dress. During the persecution of Christians in Uganda under Idi Amin, Anglicans in America asked Ugandan Christians, "Is there anything we can send you?" The answer was, "Please send us several hundred clerical collars." The Americans were baffled and asked, "Don't you want something more practical?" The reply was: "You do not at all understand our situation. When our people are being rounded up to be shot, they need to know where their clergy are.") Quaker homes were generally bare of pictures, although a few were tolerated: Edward Hicks's "The Peaceable Kingdom," Penn's treaty with the Indians, the interior of a slave ship, and a plan of Ackworth School (a Quaker school for boys and girls). Some taboos were based on sheer conservatism automatic distrust of innovation. In the 1700s, when umbrellas first came into use, Friends generally had a "testimony" against them. A Quaker did not sing, and owned no musical instrument. (Brayshaw tells of a Friend in the early 1800s who undertook to give up music, but who, once a year went to a secluded place where no one could hear him and there played his flute.) He did not play with dice or cards or shuffleboard. He did not play football. Robert Barclay, in the APOLOGY, conceded that the mind needed rest and relaxation, and that innocent recreations were therefore allowable, but he did not think music and dancing and painting and the like to be innocent. His list of recommended relaxations was "for Friends to visit one another; to hear or read history; to speak soberly of the present or past transactions; to follow after gardening, to use geometrical and mathematical experiments, and such other things of this nature." $$$ THE INITIAL ENTHUSIASM WANES One historian writes: "In about 1700, the Quaker Explosion gave place to the Quaker Exhaustion--the Quaker Riot to the Quaker Coma." Check Braithwaite and other references.) An anonymous writer in the 1850's says: "To regard the Society of Friends as it now is, and to remember what it was two centuries ago is something like paying a visit to the bed of an exhausted mountain torrent, or the crater of an extinct volcano." The opening years of the movement, say up to the end of the 1600s, are often called the Quaker Explosion. The movement was remarkable for its rapid growth, and for the joy and dedication of its members. This was noticeably less true in the 1700s and early 1800s. One factor in the decline was the death in 1691 of George Fox, whose personal energy and sense of total commitment were contagious. Another was the relaxation of persecution following the Toleration Act of 1689. Another reason was that "convinced Quakers" (those who had been converted as adults) began to be outnumbered by "birthright Quakers" (those who were born to Quaker parents and brought up in the movement, but who had not necessarily made a personal commitment to it). While many of the early Quakers set out to confront the world and shove their message into the faces of unbelievers, convinced that the world would be converted to Quakerism within their lifetimes, by 1700 most Quakers no longer expected this to happen, and instead of charging forth to convert the unbelievers, were concerned to avoid contact lest the unbelievers corrupt them. Note that Ingle (pp 190,192) appears to place this transition as early as 1661. He says that the early Quakers, up to the Restoration of the Monarchy, were expecting that the "day of the Lord" was near, and would usher in a new kingdom of justice and peace. Cromwell had begun the process of cleaning out the old rubbish, and soon the Lord would intervene to complete the process. When the Monarchy was restored, it seemed clear that this was not about to happen in the foreseeable future, and Quakers were bitterly disappointed and depressed. Ingle writes: If not immediately, the movement gradually turned in on itself, partially to survive, partially because its leaders and most members lost their millenarian conviction that they could revive a primitive Christianity and enable the saints to rule. ... After 1660 Friends... evolved into a sect markedly different from the creative, exuberant, and confrontational company of the turbulent and exciting 1650s. Leaving behind their enthusiastic and ecstatic escapades, they gradually withdrew from confrontations with society at large and became concerned with their internal problems. To a large degree, they separated themselves from the outside world. (NOTE: Check previous sources to make sure of what they say, and see where Braithwaite begins his "Second Period.") As a result, the initial fire of Quakerism gave way for a time to a certain dullness. The use of "plain speech" and "plain dress," which had once been an expression of passionate recognition that God loves and values all souls equally, and that all are brothers and sisters in the Kingdom of Christ, became simply badges of group identity, like gang colors or school or team jackets today. Meetings began to disown (Quaker term for expel) members whose behavior did not meet with the approval of the elders and overseers. (Those who have seen the film FRIENDLY PERSUASION will remember that the family, having purchased an organ, was very worried that the elders would learn of this.) A Quaker would be disowned, not only for owning or trafficking in slaves, but for owning or playing a musical instrument, for being otherwise frivolous, and in particular for marrying without parental consent, or marrying a non-Quaker. It is estimated that in the late 1700s, one third of all Quakers who married, married non-Quakers and were disowned for it. Those who left the movement by being disowned outnumbered those who joined by being convinced, and the membership was dwindling. By 1864 the number of Quakers in Britain had fallen to 13,755, smaller than at any time before or since except for the earliest days of the movement. The Quakers of the early 1800's have an honorable record of anti-slavery activity. But aside from this, they tended to emphasize withdrawing from the world. A common saying was, "Israel is to dwell alone, and not to be mixed with the people." (see Num 23:9; Neh 13:3; Hos 7:8) Quaker Meetings for Worship were affected, in that many Quakers began to hold that the ideal meeting was one conducted in complete silence, with no one speaking at all, but everyone simply listening for what the Inner Light might say to him privately. The spoken ministry never died out, but it lost much of its force by reason of certain conventional mannerisms which accompanied it, at times an excessive slowness of delivery, at others a sing-song or chanting tone which came to be looked on as evidence of the divine message speaking through human agency. Brayshaw writes: The London Yearly Meeting of 1841 warned against working with outsiders. It spoke of "watchfulness...when taking a public post with others in associations for the purpose of lessening the mass of vice and misery...or in work of more extended philanthropy. When we consider the seductive influence of popularity and the self-satisfaction consequent upon the successful efforts of the intellectual powers, even in a good cause, we feel bound, with affectionate earnestness, to caution our Friends against being led to take an undue part in the many exciting objects of the present day." Fortunately for Quakerism, the "Coma" did not last. In England <@ 52 N 1 W> in 1858 a contest was held for the best essay on the causes of the decline of Quakerism. The first prize was won by John Stephenson Rowntree, then 24 years old, whose essay, called QUAKERISM PAST AND PRESENT; BEING AN INQUIRY INTO THE CAUSES OF ITS DECLINE IN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, traced the decline to certain weaknesses, none of them inevitable. They included (a) the lack of suitable vocal ministry and religious teaching, caused by the belief that the intellect offered no aid to the spiritual life; (b) the official insistence on antiquated forms of dress, speech, and manners; (c) expulsion of members for "marrying out"; (d) "birthright membership," by which the offspring of Quakers were counted as Quakers without ever making any move to affirm their own commitment. (On his opposition to this last, Rowntree later reversed his stand.) The essay sparked a reversal of policy among Quakers in England. The turning point in America came in 1860, at the Indiana <@40 N 80 W> Yearly Meeting, when the younger Friends held a meeting by themselves, without the presence of sober elders. More than a thousand attended, and many spoke or prayed publicly for the first time in their lives. In the resulting revivalist movement, music was not only employed in practice, but defended in theory. The question was asked: "Will a child be led to commit evil any more readily by improper music than by improper conversation, and would not the sensible plan be to endeavor to regulate both, not cut either entirely off?" $$$ QUAKERS AND WEALTH For many years, the Universities of Oxford <51:46 N 1:15 W> and Cambridge <52:12 N 0:07 E> were closed to all but Anglicans. Nonconformists (i.e., Protestants who refused to conform to the doctrine and worship of the Church of England, also called Dissenters) directed their ambitions elsewhere. They became merchants, or bankers, or industrialists, or inventors, or scientists. Many of the nobility and gentry considered Anglicanism the only respectable religion, and income from inherited wealth, especially inherited land, the only respectable kind of income. This gave Dissenters a clear field, and Quakers were swift to take advantage of it. They acquired a reputation for honest dealing and well-made products, and so had plenty of customers. They rejected the common practice of bargaining with each customer, charging him whatever he could be induced to pay. Instead, they named a price and stuck to it, and charged all customers the same price, so that a child could be sent to a Quaker shop to buy goods and the parents knew what price would be charged, and so they attracted more customers. They trusted one another, and so lent money readily to a fellow Quaker who was planning to expand his business and needed capital. Since they did not spend their money on "frills and furbelows," they tended to re-invest it, and so their fortunes accumulated. The Barclay family (see biography of Robert Barclay) became bankers. If you have ever traveled in Britain, carrying traveler's checks that were made out in pounds sterling, they were probably issued by Barclay's Bank. What is now the VISA credit card was formerly BarclayCard in Britain. The only British bank I can think of that is better known than Barclay's is Lloyd's of London, and that also was founded by a Quaker family. It is not surprising that the wealthy Nonconformist, and especially the wealthy Quaker, became a British stereotype. Let us consider the Gurney family, of Earlham, in East Anglia. Lovers of Gilbert and Sullivan will remember that in their TRIAL BY JURY, the Judge, in telling the story of his career, and how he got his career started by proposing marriage to the daughter of a rich attorney, ends with the words, "At length I became as rich as the Gurneys. An incubus then I thought her. So I threw over that rich attorney's elderly, ugly daughter. That rich attorney my character high tried vainly to disparage. And now, if you please, I'm ready to try this breach of promise of marriage." As we see, the wealth of the Gurney family was proverbial. $$$ ELIZABETH GURNEY FRY John Gurney and his wife Catherine were married in 1775, and lived at Earlham Hall, an estate near Norwich <52:38 N 1:18 E>. They had seven daughters and five sons (including a son that died in infancy). Catherine was the great-granddaughter of Robert Barclay (author of the APOLOGY, and founder of the banking family). They were Quakers, and John used the plain speech and the plain dress, but was, in comparison with most of the other Quakers we have met in this study, a relaxed rather than a fiery and dedicated adherent. His home was a social center, with many parties, and the guests included the Bishop of Norwich and the Prince of Wales. The children found the local Quaker meeting unattractive, with the speeches perfunctory and insipid. They might easily have dropped their Quakerism altogether, and become fashionable Anglicans. However, some of them became committed Quakers, and two of them in particular, Joseph John Gurney and Elizabeth Gurney Fry, became heroes of the Quaker movement. What influenced them? First, they were introduced to the writings of Quakers from an earlier, more dedicated era, and learned from them about a Quakerism other than the local variety. Again, their family extended its hospitality as a matter of course to traveling Quaker ministers, and so they heard the preaching of William Savery, a Philadelphia <40 N 75:10 W> Quaker and, like John Woolman, a firm opponent of slavery. He preached at Norwich in 1798, and the 17-year-old Elizabeth Gurney was powerfully affected. Her life was changed. Not everyone approved. Her 15-year-old sister Richenda wrote in her journal, about a month later: I have felt extremely uncomfortable about Betsy's Quakerism, which I saw, to my sorrow, increasing every day. She no longer joined in our pleasant dances, and singing she seemed to give up, she dressed as plain as she could, and spoke still more so. We all feel about it alike, and are truly sorry that one of us seven should separate herself in principles, actions, and appearance from the rest. Elizabeth's new commitment showed itself in ways other than "plainness." She started a school for poor children of the neighborhood, who would not otherwise have been able to afford learning. She taught them herself, in rooms at Earlham, as many as seventy in a class. In 1800, when she was twenty, she married Joseph Fry. Thirteen years later, when she and her husband had eight children and very little money (he was not a good businessman), Elizabeth Fry began her prison ministry at Newgate Prison in London <51:30 N 0:10 W>. The immediate impetus for her work was a visit from Stephen Grellet (see 16 Nov). She ministered to the prisoners in person, and also inspected the prisons and wrote reports and recommendations. She argued for separate quarters for men and women, for female supervision of female prisoners, for classification of prisoners (distinguishing the violent from the non-violent, the career criminals from first offenders, those serving sentences from those awaiting trial), for provision of religious and secular instruction, and for opportunities for useful employment. Her work was a powerful influence for prison reform throughout Europe and America. She was also influential in improving the quality of hospitals and of the treatment of the insane. She died 12 October 1845. A debunking biographer (J. Rose) complains that, while running around helping prisoners and others, she left her children in the care of relatives and nannies, and that they resented this, so that only one of the eight remained a Quaker upon reaching adulthood. Elizabeth's problem of balancing the competing claims of family and others is one that has faced many who have believed themselves called to a great work. I am not prepared to say that she was wrong. As noted above, Elizabeth Fry was working in a time when Quakers tended to emphasize withdrawal from the world. Not every Quaker approved of her involvement. In 1848, three years after her death, the (Philadelphia) FRIEND wrote of Elizabeth Fry that her "whirlwind of philanthropic business...inducing premature old age," was "highly unfavorable" to spiritual growth, and adds, "her self-complacency was evidently gratified and fed by the notice and applause which her labors attracted." However, she was not the only Quaker of her time who was committed to improving social conditions. In the early 1800's, Joseph Lancaster and other Quakers worked to establish a system of free elementary schools in England. Quakers were also much concerned by issues connected with capital punishment. In 1819 there were 180 crimes punishable by death, but by 1838 only murder was in practice so punished. Quakers helped lead the struggle for this reform. Samuel Gurney (1786-1856), banker, brother of Elizabath Gurney Fry, let a forger go free because conviction carried the death penalty.