A remarkable meeting
Elinor Smallman looks back on the Friend in December 1843
In January 1843 a new monthly journal for Quakers in Britain was launched. The Friend was founded by editors who were ‘influenced by the desire to furnish a channel through which all who are connected with the Society of Friends may derive information on such subjects of general importance to the body as are calculated to afford instruction and pleasure to its members’. In December – as the first edition of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol hit the bookshelves – the fledgling Friend marked its first year tongue firmly in cheek with the report of ‘a rather remarkable meeting’ by ‘A Friend of Letters’.
The scene is set
The report was a witty way of assessing the first twelve months of the Friend. 1843 had been an interesting year in publishing with the launch, also, of The Economist and a newspaper called the News of the World.
The writer, the ‘Friend of Letters’, used the idea of marshalling ‘in rank and file’ the letters of the alphabet. They were to offer their opinions on the Friend’s first year. The ‘Friend of Letters’ suggests that the meeting had been prompted because some letters had ‘expressed disapprobation’ while others, more supportively, had ‘offered suggestions for improvement’.
He continued: ‘Accordingly, at one o’clock A.M., on the 19th of Eleventh Month, 1843, it was arranged that there should be a conference of all the letters of the alphabet, at the printer’s office. All the letters were in their places at the time appointed, and for the further expediting of the important task before them, it was unanimously agreed that the letter A, as usual, should be in the chair…’
Business begins
A opened the business of the meeting and encouraged all letters present to ‘speak their minds freely, as their remarks might have a beneficial influence on the Friend during the ensuing year’. Thankfully, the majority were happy for the magazine to continue into that second year, but there were one or two suggestions…
Y ‘saw too many instances in the Friend of an inclination to depart from the language employed by ancient Friends’ whilst M felt ‘it is not what is ancient that is wanted – it is something new. The Friend must keep pace with the age’.
X ‘should be pleased if more new publications were reviewed in the Friend, and more extracts inserted from them’. However, H ‘objected to such extracts’ and felt that ‘the place which had been occupied by such extracts would, in his opinion, have been better filled had it contained narratives suited to the comprehension of young children.’
R thought there was ‘a want of concern in the paper for the interests of humanity generally’ and that ‘the editors seem to have taken alarm at anything connected with politics’. He was backed up by G, whose opinion was that innovation was also lacking: ‘the Friend, if it wants to gain popularity, must show more decision on great questions, and more boldness in expressing its opinion. In a word, it must have more spirit.’
J was puzzled by G and replied that if a want of spirit meant ‘the absence of dogmatical decision and overbearing eloquence’ he would say that ‘however magnificent might be the foaming cataract, or the resistless torrent, it was inferior in its practical benefit to the calm stream that turned the mill of the peasant’.
E chimed in to say ‘another remedy than a political one was required for the eradication of the evils complained of. In all diseases which originate in the human heart, it is to the heart that the cure must be applied. If [the Friend] had not made use of vehement denunciation of evil practices and evil doers, the tenor of its religious articles had shown a warm interest in the good of the community’.
Other perspectives
Z, who dwelt in seclusion, spoke eloquently on how many letters, ‘surrounded as they were by their friends, could easily become acquainted with what was passing in the religious world around them, But with himself, as was well known, the case was different. He loved to hear of the labours of Friends in the ministry. They were animating to him in his solitary condition. And though he had hitherto never been accused of being wanting in ZEAL, however much he might lag behind in the career of letters, he thought he had found benefit from observing the zeal of others.’
After all the letters had said their piece and aired their views, the chair rose to say that ‘the discussion had forcibly reminded him of the difficulties with which the editors had to grapple, if they tried to make their paper acceptable to all their readers. Had he expressed an opinion, he should have said that praise was due to them for what they had accomplished, rather than condemnation for what they had not’ and brought the meeting to a close.
Tidy-minded Friends may be relieved to hear that, despite the back and forth between the letters, they ‘were found the next morning, just as the compositor had left them on the previous night’.
The power of letters
As the ‘Friend of Letters’ says, ‘It does certainly seem difficult to believe that what we have been accustomed to call the letters of the alphabet should now be considered to possess not merely the faculty of thinking [but] the power likewise of expressing their thoughts; yet, is this any more strange than the fact that these twenty-six letters, however small, ill shaped, or arbitrary they may be, are the great civilisers of the world? Nay, farther, that by means of certain collocations and combinations they exert now, and have long exerted, a prodigious influence on the temporal and eternal interests of millions and tens of millions of the human race?’
170 years, nineteen editors and over 6,000 editions later – the Friend is still here, playing its part in the life of the Religious Society of Friends.
You need to login to read subscriber-only content and/or comment on articles.