A word about the writing style seems to be in order. Modern readers (especially ones with little familiarity with older Quaker pieces) are liable to misinterpret the approach and fail to appreciate the way she makes her case in this essay, misreading what seem to be self-abasing comments and a hesitant, almost apologetic tone (especially when they come from a woman) and think she was uncertain of her status or was undercutting her own case. What is actually happening is nearly the opposite. While it might sound ironic by current standards, the weighty message (and the messenger) could actually gain credence if it was delivered by someone who was reluctant and felt unqualified for the task. What she was doing, and doing quite skillfully, was asserting her authority in this way and emphasizing the importance of her subject.
A striking feature of this essay is the extended introduction. She does not introduce her subject until the third paragraph. When she does bring it in, she has already put herself in a stronger position by having laid down a religious and theological foundation; from there she is better able to expose a situation where hypocrisy reigns, and members of a religious Society profess much with their lips while participating in and actively encouraging a situation that spreads evil and misery and directs the minds of people away from the Light of Christ.
As much as we might like to think we have made progress since that time, our unfortunate situation is one where alcohol is still extensively abused, and the personal, familiar and societal consequences of that abuse are just as great as they ever were in 1761. One of my reasons for reproducing this important work is to prompt present day Friends to re-examine their own testimony (or lack thereof!) regarding alcohol. It is a substance that remains a powerful, mood altering and potentially addictive drug that impairs judgment and coordination. The long term use of it still causes damage to the liver, kidneys, stomach, pancreas, brain, and other organs. It is still very much associated with domestic violence and other crimes, and compromises the personal security not only of the intoxicated person but of those whom may just happen to be in the wrong place in the wrong time.
What testimony do we, who are intended to be a holy people and a kingdom of priests, set up as a city on a hill, have with regard to this subject? Who do our lives--which are speaking, whether we intend them to at the moment or not--say to others regarding the progress we have made in paying heed to the Light of Christ, and our being patterns and examples? How diligent are we at removing stumbling blocks and endeavoring to become (with God's help) way marks to others? I believe the fact that we have been negligent does not mean there is no testimony, or that earlier generations may have done a poor job at developing one does not mean we are excused from doing a good job.
The text presented here is one I have edited from the original manuscript in the Friends' Historical Library at Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA. This manuscript is hand written vertically on paper a little smaller than the current stenographer's tablet, folded in the middle and bound with thread to a larger, thicker, irregularly shaped piece of gray paper serving as a cover. The manuscript itself is in near pristine condition, with all of the pages present and correctly collated, no tears or other damages and no evidence of water of mildew damage. While this (and her legible handwriting) makes it easier for the historical editor to work with, it also suggests that the manuscript received little attention.
I have attempted to be quite cautious and conservative in editing her manuscript. This text includes numerous phrases and clauses that John Comly deleted and have never appeared in print before. I have tried to limit myself to correcting spelling errors and updating archaic spelling when it would not effect pronunciation. I have also corrected some grammatical errors, made the capitalization more consistent, and introduced the use of paragraphs and periods at the end of sentences. I have tried to keep her style as intact as possible. My version has more words but fewer sentences and paragraphs than the Comly version, making it I suppose a little harder to read but, I believe, a more faithful edition.
This production is supplemented with a biographical article from The Friend (Philadelphia), an Orthodox periodical, and four letters to her daughters. The letters were also edited by John Comly and published in Friends' Miscellany(4), with the same texts of two of them also appearing in The Friend, in the same 1862 series.(5)The reader is advised that I could not find original or alternate texts, and they may not be fully accurate. Assuming the chronology given in The Friend(6) is reasonably accurate and the references near the end are, as they would appear to be, to her friend Susanna Blundel, the first letter would date to circa 1760. If, as seems probable, the fourth letter refers to the death of her daughter Lydia, it would date to 1774-1775.
The reader will observe that at times in her letters she seems to be addressing herself to a single
reader, and will later on in the same letter seem to be addressing more than one person. No
attempt has been made to harmonize this inconsistency. There is also a curious instance of her
asking her love be given to all who inquire after, whether they are black or white. I would guess
without further knowledge of the situation this means like what it sounds like it means, but can (at
least at present) provide no further information beyond it is unusual.
Peter SippelWarminster, PA
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.