‘That Friend speaks my mind’

A phrase one sometimes hears in Quaker business meetings is “That Friend speaks my mind.” This is a formulaic way of expressing agreement with the previous speaker.

To people new to Quakerism, this can be an odd-sounding phrase, since in ordinary usage, we rarely speak of one person “speaking someone else’s mind.” Expressions like “John really speaks his mind” are quite common, of course, but in this case it is John’s own mind which he speaks, not someone else’s.  The implication here is of not holding back, of expressing one’s thoughts despite a possible negative reaction from others.  This implication is not present in “That Friend speaks my mind,” which instead serves as a quite neutral statement that one’s own views on the issue under discussion were already well described by what someone else has said.

It is difficult to gauge how long this phrase has been part of Quaker usage, since it is one that appears primarily just in speech, and even then almost exclusively in the special context of business meetings. It does not appear in early Quaker literature — but this literature consists mainly of doctrinal tracts, epistles, journals, etc.; we wouldn’t expect to encounter it in these genres anyway. Nor should we expect it in business meeting minutes, since these function merely as an official record of the proceedings, and don’t ordinarily include a verbatim transcript of what was said during the meeting.  It is natural to suspect, then, that this phrase was in use long before its first appearance in print.

That having been said, the earliest occurrence of this phrase I have found is from 1821, in a newspaper article describing Quaker business practice (at Philadelphia Yearly Meeting in particular):

When a subject is broached, a member rises and gives his opinion of it in language at once concise, comprehensive, and definite. A second follows him, extending the view of the subject if there is any cause for extension, if not, he expresses his accordance of sentiment in a short sentence, such for instance as “I am in unity with the friend who has last spoken,” or, “that friend speaks my mind,” and down he sits very composedly. A third rises delivering his opinion in like manner, or, if he dissents from the others, he expresses his disapprobation in a speech equally pertinent and laconic; and thus a subject is broached, discussed, and decided upon, in less time, perhaps, than we have taken to relate the mode of proceeding; for these people do not think it necessary to use ten thousand words to communicate ten ideas, or give to ten ideas ten thousand forms.

Niles’ Weekly Register, vol. XX, no. 22, p. 348

I wonder how many of our modern business meetings could be described as similarly “laconic.”

A brief digression: Atkinson’s Casket lists the author of ‘The Outlaw of the Pines’ as A.H. Smith, but the story was republished without separate attribution of authorship in Henry C. Watson’s book The Old Bell of Independence (1852), and again in Watson’s Noble Deeds of Our Fathers (1888) and Collected Works of Henry C. Watson (2008). The only biographical information I could find on Watson lists him as born in 1831, so he could not have been the original author of this story.

Another early appearance of this phrase in print is in the mouth of a Quaker character in the short story ‘The Outlaw of the Pines’, published in Atkinson’s Casket in 1833:

“That’s right, Amy Collins; I like to hear you say so. How them Hessians can run — the tarnal niggars — they steal sassages better than they stand bullets.  I told ‘em it would be so, when they was here beguzzlen my bucket cakes, in plain English; only the outlandish Injins couldn’t understand their mother tongue.—  They’re got enough swallowen without chawen, this morning. I wish ‘em nothen but Jinerel Maxwell, at their tails, tickling ‘em with continental bagnets.”

“That friend speaks my mind,” said Elnathan, with a half sanctimonious, half waggish look, and slight nasal twang.

“Mine too,” as devoutly responded a companion, whom he had just brought to assist in the pursuit of the robbers.

Atkinson’s Casket, no. 2, p. 54.

In any case, the phrase “That Friend speaks my mind” is mentioned by several 19th century authors, almost always as a Quaker expression.  Here is a fairly typical example from 1853:

UNITY OF SENTIMENT

A contemporary asks— What is true independence? and then adds— “A great many people like ‘an independent press,’ which chimes exactly with their own opinions, but a truly honest press must differ from somebody.” Of course it must.  If everybody thought the same way, what an unhappy unanimity there would be!  To use the phraseology of the Quakers, no speech would be uttered, but some one would jump up and exclaim “That friend speaks my mind,” while all the auditors would assent by a charming display of “nods and becks and wreathed smiles,” It has been wisely ordained that tastes should be as dissimilar as individuals, of whom no two are to be found exactly alike; and it is to this opposition, and to these diversities and these similarities with a difference, that every advancement in knowledge and the arts is owing.

Arthur’s Home Magazine, vol. 1, no. 7, p. 560

In this example, the phrase itself and its connection to Quakerism are incidental to the general purpose of the text, but the phrase is discussed in more systematic descriptions of Quaker customs right up to the present, e.g. Charles Frederick Holder’s The Quakers in Great Britain and America (1913), Anna Wistar Comfort’s ‘Some Peculiarities of Quaker Speech’ (one of the first modern scholarly treatments of Quaker language, in American Speech 7.6 (1932)), Howard Brinton’s Guide to Quaker Practice (1943), Leonard Kenworthy’s Quakerism: A Study Guide on the Religious Society of Friends (1981), Thomas Hamm’s The Quakers in America (2003), etc.  Unlike some old Quaker phrases, this is not one which died out and was later revived, but seems to have been in continuous use over an extended period.

Friends of what?

The glossary of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting’s Faith and Practice (in its entry for Truth) contains the statement “Early Quakers called themselves the Religious Society of Friends of the Truth.” The historical section of Ohio Yearly Meeting’s website is entitled “History of the Religious Society of Friends of the Truth.” The “Quaker Quest” section of the website for Quakers in Yorkshire states “The Religious Society of Friends (of the Truth) came about as in response to the interpretations and practices of the 17th Century Churches.” There appears to be a widespread impression that the full or original name of the Society of Friends is “The Religious Society of Friends of the Truth.”

As I pointed out in an earlier post, Friends did not start using the “Religious Society of…” phrasing until the late 18th century — more than a century after the beginning of the Quaker movement — so it is definitely not the case that “early Quakers” called themselves “The Religious Society of Friends of the Truth.”

Still, the label “Friends of the Truth” (or simply “Friends of Truth”) does date back to the very early days of Quakerism. It is natural to wonder, therefore, if Quakers began to call themselves “Friends” as a shortened form of this phrase.

The question is complicated by the fact that 17th century Friends also sometimes used phrases like “Friends of Christ” or “Friends of God” for themselves. In addition, a commonly offered explanation of the origin of the name “Friends” is that it is an allusion to John 15:14–15, which would seem to support the idea that “Friends” is short for something like “Friends of Christ”:

Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.”

I hope to investigate the origins of this story for why Quakers adopted the name “Friends” in a later post; for now, let me just note that early Friends do not appear to have explained it in this way.

But early Quakers did call themselves “Friends of Christ,” along with “Friends of the Truth” and various other similar phrases, so it seems worth investigating the relative chronology of their appearance, and considering the question whether the single word “Friends” might have originated as a shortening of one of these labels.

We are speaking here of terminology from the very early years of Quakerism, so there are a lot of practical barriers to research.  Quakers produced a large pamphlet literature in the 1650s, most of which is not available in electronic form — and which is therefore not readily available or easily searchable.  A number of handwritten letters have also been preserved, but are not easily accessible to those of us who do this kind of work as a spare-time hobby.

There are also some difficult problems of interpretation in addressing these questions.  If an author uses the phrase “Friends of God,” how can we be sure that it is intended as a term for Quakers, as opposed to taking it literally as describing anyone who is on friendly terms with God?   Sometimes the context makes the intended meaning clear, but sometimes, one simply has to guess.

So readers should understand that any conclusions presented here are offered only tentatively and with limited confidence.

All that having been said, it is clear that the phrase “Friends of Truth,” used as a term for the Quakers, dates back at least to 1653.  The earliest attestation I have come across is in a 1653 letter from Margaret Fell to Col. West, published in A Brief Collection of Remarkable Passages and Occurrences Relating to the Birth, Education, Life, Conversion, Travels, Services, and Deep Sufferings of that Ancient, Eminent, and Faithful Servant of the Lord, Margaret Fell; but by her Second Marriage, Margaret Fox (1710) p. 42:

Most part of the Goals [sic] in the North part of England hath some Friends of the Truth in them, as York, Carlisle, Appleby, and Lancaster.

But the single word “Friends” appears just as early, as in the following sentence from a 1653 letter from Gervase Benson to George Fox and James Nayler, reproduced in A.R. Barclay’s Letters, &c of Early Friends (1841) p. 3:

As for the Friends’ enlargement at Kendal, George Taylor, I hope, hath or will give you an account.

Although both terms are quite early, I have not found any clear indication that one of them was understood as a shortened form of the other.

“Friends of the Lord” appears almost as early as either of these terms, as in this passage from 1657 epistle by Fox, reproduced in his journal (vol. 1, p. 340  of the 1837 edition):

All Friends of the Lord every where, whose minds are turned in towards the Lord, take heed to the light within you, which is the light of Christ; which, as you love it, will call your minds inward, that are abroad in the creatures; so your minds may be renewed by it, and turned to God in this which is pure, to worship the living God, the Lord of hosts, over all the creatures.

“Friends of God” appears about the same time, in this 1658 epistle from Margaret Fell (Remarkable Passages, p. 196):

Friends of God, who are in the Unity of the Faith, and in the Spirit of Grace, Grace and Peace be multiplied amongst you, in the Bowels of everlasting Love I write unto you, and in the Name and Power of Jesus Christ I Exhort you, that as you have received Jesus Christ, so walk in him; as you have received the Truth, so abide in the Truth, that the Truth may make you free.

“Friends of Christ” is harder to date.  What is probably the earliest attestation I have found is in Fox’s Epistle CCLXXIX, which, unfortunately, is undated:

All Friends every where, who are friends of Christ the heavenly man, by whom the world was made, and are become friends of God through Christ Jesus, who are quickened by Jesus, and made alive by him, who were dead in old Adam, and are now made alive by the second Adam, and have drunk his blood, through which you have life, and by which you come from among the congregations of the dead, who only talk of his blood and his flesh.

Fox also uses this phrase in his journal (vol 1, p. 351 of the 1831 ed.):

There were two Independent churches in Scotland, in one of which many were convinced; but the pastor of the other was in a great rage against truth and Friends. They had their elders, who sometimes would exercise their gifts amongst the church members, and were sometimes pretty tender; but their pastor speaking so much against the light, and us, the friends of Christ, he darkened his hearers; so that they grew blind and dry, and lost their tenderness.

Another undated but early occurrence of this phrase is in the title “An Epistle to Such of the Friends of Christ, as Have Lately Been Convinced of the Truth as it is in Jesus,” which was later published in Truth Vindicated by the Faithful Testimony and Writings of the Innocent Servant and Hand-maid of the Lord, Elizabeth Bathurst, Deceased (1695).

To summarize: All these terms except “Friends of Christ” can be definitively dated back to the 1650s, and “Friends of Christ” is not much later, if at all.  But the single word “Friends” is as early as any of them; there is no indication that it was understood as a shortening of a longer phrase.