Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
Although Puritans in the Elizabethan period were of many varieties, dramatists agreed in representing them by a single type. Whether this type was originally drawn from life, or was evolved from the presentation of the Hypocrite in the morality plays, there can be no doubt that the conventional Puritan of the Elizabethan stage was little more than an abstraction. Real Puritans even then were of many minds: some stood for Calvinism and some for re-baptism; some for a militant church and some for a passive; some were democratic and would let the congregation rule, and some believed in a presbyterian form of government. Others joined the Puritans merely because they objected to so much royal interference. The existence of so many diverse views among the Puritans may to some extent have necessitated a broad characterization of them. Thompson has shown, however, that even when dealing with a particular sect, as for example the Family of Love, Elizabethan playwrights failed to discriminate.
1 See Thompson, The Controversy between the Puritans and the Stage, pp. 240-1.
2 E.g., Soloman Eagles (Eccles?) twice mentioned by Defoe in the History of the Plague and in the Journal of the Plague Year, and by Pepys, July 29, 1667. Thomas Story in his Journal defends the practice; extract given by Southey, Commonplace Book, pp. 236-7.
3 A typical complaint : “He (Thomas Andrews of Wallingborough, Northamptonshire) had trouble with the Quakers, who would come into the church and disturb him as he was preaching; but he used to stop till the officers carried them out of the church.—Palmer, Non-Conformists' Memorial, II, p. 235. These disturbers were probably not Quakers, but Ranters, a thorn in the flesh to the Friends, also.—Storey, op. cit., p. 107.
4 Joseph Smith, Bibliotheca Anti-Quakeriana, lists numerous pamphlets imputing witchcraft to the Quakers. An especially interesting title-page reads as follows: “STRANGE AND TERRIBLE NEWES FROM CAMBRIDGE, being a true relation of the Quakers bewitching Mary Philips out of her Bed from her Husband in the Night, and transformed her into the Shape of a Bay Mare, riding her from Dinton, towards the University. With the manner how she became visible again to the People in her own Likeness and Shape, with her sides all rent and torn, as if they had been spur-gald, her hands and feet worn as black as a coal, and her mouth slit with the Bridle Bit. Likewise her Speech to the Scholars and Countrey-men, upon this great and wonderful Change, her Oath before the Judges and Justices, and the Names of the Quakers brought to Tryal on Friday last at the Assises held in Cambridge. With the Judgment of the Court. As also, the Devils scratching of one from his company and hoisting him up into the Air, with what hap-ned thereupon. London, Printed for C. Brooks, and are to be sold at the Royal Exchange in Cornhill, 1659.”—Smith, op. cit., p. 14. See also A. M. Gummere, Witchcraft and Quakerism. Evans (Friends in the 17th Century, p. v) states the popular superstition regarding Fox: that he was reported to be in different places at the same time. That he sometimes rode a black horse, that he often moved without visible means of locomotion, that he never lay on a bed, that no one could draw blood from him, that he bewitched all who came near him, and that his followers were victims of trouble. Pepys (Dec. 31, 1663) speaks of “hearing some simple discourse about Quakers being charmed by a string about their wrists.”
5 See Amelia Gummere, The Quaker, a Study in Costume, p. 15.
6 The Quakers “are almost all in trade, and therefore once a year they meet in the several towns in England, to know the state of that part of the country”.— G. Angeloni, Letters on the English Nation, 1755, II. pp. 128-130. Also see Penny Centenary ed. Journal of George Fox, V, 94.
7 “Then, if good-nature shows some slender proof
They never think they have reward enough
But like our modern Quakers of the town
Expect your manners, and return you none.“—Defoe, True-Born Englishman.
8 “From Hopes we shall Dissenters bring
To union with a Popish King
And Penn who manages the whole thing,
Libera nos Domine.“
(From a pseudo-litany cited by Gasquet, Adventures of James II of England, p. 360.)
“The Quakers, who have fallen under the just displeasure and detestation of the kingdom for their conjunction with King James, have been since humour'd in their nonsence, excused from oaths, exempted from penalties of the Act lately made by taking the oathes, and must the bishops stil for refusing one oath be undone?”—Clarke, Life and Times of Wood, p. 309. A modern instance: “The Quaker, William Penn, had assured James that if England were invaded from France and Ireland, his supporters would rally around him.”—Edwin and Marion Sharpe, The English Court in Exile, 1911.
9 Listed by Langbaine as the work of Anthony Brewer, 1647. Revised 1677 and credited on the title-page to John Leanord. I know of only two copies in America, one in the Boston Public Library and the other at Haverford College. See W. W. Comfort, “Some Stage Quakers,” F. H. A. Bulletin, XIV, 1.
10 “Yea-and-Nay” bargaining is featured in numerous prose and verse satires of the period. For a treatment of the whole field, see Maxfield, Quakerism and Eng. Lit., 1650-1780, unpublished dissertation, Harvard College Library.
11 Proposition II, VI. See also William Penn, No Cross No Crown, Sec. 6. “Whose [i.e., those who doat on following the ”pleasures of the god of the World“] religion is so many mumbled and ignorantly devout-said words, as they teach parrots, etc.”
12 Besse, Sufferings of the Quakers, 1753.
13 The Braggadocio, or the Bawd turned Puritan: A new Comedy. By a Gentleman of Quality. 1691.
14 Bk. III, line 277-80.
15 A typical contemporary joke relating to “hat-honour” is the following from Quin's Jests, London, 1766, p. 19. “A certain member of the same Society (Robin Hood) who by religious profession a Quaker, getting up to speak with his hat on, the president desired him to be uncovered.—‘Friend’, said he, ‘my spirit of forbearance will not suffer me to take it off myself, but thou may'st take it off for me’, which being done he made a very long and stupid speech; when another member, somewhat more facetious, rose up and said, ‘It was five minutes pity that his worthy friend Nathan's Spirit of forbearance had not moved him to forbear speaking, as covered or uncovered it was impossible to discover what was his meaning.’”
16 Geo. Fox speaks of a Quaker butler to the second Baron Barnard, of Roby Castle, Durham County.—Harvey, George Fox, p. 312 n.
17 Such unconvincing Quakers as these may be of the same made-to-order variety mentioned in the following: (1)—“but his (Sir Robert Howard's) comic power is strongly and admirably manifested in his Committee, a transcript of Puritan life, which,—applied to the Quakers, for want of better subjects for caricature—may still be witnessed in country theatres, in Honest Thieves.—Doran, Annals of the Eng. Stage, 1865, I, p. 137. (2) Genest, VII, p. 474, says that Mrs. Inchbald substituted Quaker characters for the persons of Mme. Huppnitz and her daughter in her translation of Trotzebue's Writing-desk or Youth in Danger, 1799.
18 Other colors worn by women Friends were grey and blue. Probably the green predominated. See A. M. Gummere, op. cit.
19 Ballads and scurrilous verse-satire particularly pick on Quaker meetings.
20 “Of the Ranters, I have observed, that they held absurd and blasphemous opinions; and frequently came into our meetings, and rant, sing, and dance, and act like madmen, throwing dust in the face of our ministers when preaching. Though they are called Quakers, and have meetings of their own as we have, yet they have no discipline or order among them.”—Thomas Story, Journal, p. 107.
21 Friends have always had a temperance clause in their Disciplines, though it did not necessarily apply to total abstinence. Geo. Fox petitioned Parliament, 1698, against permitting more public houses than necessary for the accommodation of travelers.—Barclay, Religious Societies of the Commonwealth, p. 256 n.
Taverns were known to have been conducted by Friendly proprietors, though it is likely that they were maintained primarily for the use of transient patrons. The Journal, F. H. A., XIII, p. 22, cites an instance of an Edinburgh Friend, William Miller, who made the fortune of $pD50,000 in this way.
22 The charge so often made in anti-Quaker satires that Quakers are disciples of Cromwell is justified by the fact that there were a considerable number of Cromwellian soldiers who became Friends. See C. H. Firth, Cromwell's Army, pp. 344-5; Friends' Tract Ass'n, No. 226, Changed Warfare; Journal, F. H. S., II, p. 85; Rufus Jones, George Fox, p. 302; Penny, Cent. ed. Geo. Fox's Journal, p. 434. “Last of all, from the heart of the Puritan sects sprang the religion of the Quakers, in which many a war-worn soldier of the Commonwealth closed his visionary eyes.”—Trevelyan, England Under the Stuarts, 5th ed., p. 231.
23 Acted at Drury Lane, Nov. 8, 1755, (Genest, IV, p. 442-3), and Sept. 28, 1757, (supra, p. 474). Other references indicate that it was popular throughout the century.
24 A final harangue by Discipline informs us that London Jews have unanimously agreed to rebuild White-hall on the model of Blenheim Castle and that the Quakers are to furnish paintings and arras-hangings, “who being weary of their former slovenly Garb and Formality, resolve from hence-forth to wear pantaloons and Ribbons.”
25 Doran, Annals of the Eng. Stage, II, p. 362, says that the remodeled Covent Garden Theatre “opened on the 18th of September, 1809, with Macbeth and The Quaker; but the audience was unruly and would not allow the actors to be heard.
26 “He used to prescribe with his hat on (and it was a hat of most trementdous size ever seen), and was a tall, stiff personage, always using the dialect of his sect. His conversation consisted of a number of sentences spoken with an almost solemn conciseness and importance.”—Percy Fitzgerald, Samuel Foote, p. 299. The coincidence also noted by Dr. Lettsom in his more recent biography of Dr. Fordyce.
27 William Penn, 3rd., got into a disgraceful affray with the city watch after a late stay at a tavern in company with the “unprincipled” Governor Evans, much to the “concern” of his father. The elder brother Thomas was also said to be a “black sheep” who reverted to the “world” and got pleasure out of entertaining British soldiers at wine parties, cheating the Indians, and renouncing the Society.—Janney, Life of William Penn, pp. 482-3; Graham, ditto, pp. 268-9.
28 A modern instance: a story told me by a famous dean at Harvard several years ago, relates that two brothers, Friends from Philadelphia, were playing football on Soldiers Field, when at the instance of some act of the other's that displeased his brother, one was heard to remark, “If thee does that again, John, I'll break thee dam' neck.”
29 The Friends in council were always opposed to slavery, from the times of Fox onward, and wrote many pamphlets denouncing it. Smith, Descriptive Catalogue of Friends' Books, gives a notable list of such works. In America two notable anti-slavery writers were Anthony Benezet and John Woolman. Janney, op. cit., XXXI, says that William Penn liberated his slaves by 1700-1. Barclay, op. cit., 554, records that there was not a slave owned by a Friend by 1780.
30 Comfort, op. cit., gives some examples from the modern period.
