u...” uv .-...,<.. no. nur... v-n--..-.n¢c-qwun-u».w-..qu-y.._ww-w .__ r > F' ' 1v , ——— “—7 — ‘ .u‘ .,. I“ RELIGION in THE CREATION * AND PRESERVATION 10F :~ - - SECTARIA‘N CULTUREAREASé V 4‘ ' ‘ A. MENNONH‘E EXAMPLE : \ . - ‘ Dissertation for the. Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY CHARLES A. HEATWOLE , 1-974 i "now u -.~ ljbRARY hiicljig 171 State University ”fir-rm : amoms av ‘5' HOME & SONS’ BOOK BINDERY LIBRARY BINDERS I; SPRIKGPORT. MICHIGAN I'Lmflfl AIM: 3".) 3’4" Ilnxcxos In T~r Lfifi‘ AIN r“ rMLuerL‘.' M- 01' be‘EAkl Ms c.3111?“ AREAS. A MI‘NK‘ZIII'EE F‘L‘“ 'i" 9'3 ‘ Cid? lea A. chfunlts . ! .ovorll qocqzsp .‘331 I? «1‘»: nave ;ndicared 'hat 1. a qunItu'snt element the creation and ‘oov v; ‘ to. o! aorta-“ noctarLtn auituro areas in the Chlhn- Hanover the question of stagiouI mecha- v -'\ virtually ignorid. Raw data rengiafi produce and pteurv. such stun? PremiCmg jiyx‘: ..y i ind-it. to this aututtun to an. .330: goal of . . 3» I ‘ f. ‘ I . a“ .. cm. .~ % tau study, the mum {meslpéim two» which In: W mu: m “'1 ¥w9.t Wanna unchWflfiu I7 cal-unatinn d! mat! giggi33illllflln ‘L cow. “tum. u -‘_“.Iff ‘5‘ m t «a :1 A"). ABSTRACT RELIGION IN THE CREATION AND PRESERVATION OF SECTARIAN CULTURE AREAS: A MENNONITE EXAMPLE BY Charles A. Heatwole Several geographical studies have indicated that religion is a significant element in the creation and preservation of certain sectarian culture areas in the United States. However, the question of religious mecha- nism has been virtually ignored. How does religion operate to produce and preserve such areas? Providing tentative answers to this question is the major goal of this dissertation. As a case study, the dissertation focuses upon the Mennonites, a group which has fostered several culture areas in the United States. An historical overview of this group is followed by examination of part of the Mennonite population in Rockingham County, Virginia, where a Mennonite culture area has developed. The historical section seeks mainly to understand the factors and forces which have led to the creation of Mennonite culture areas. j the study c :cncermad I. :ulture are A i ‘.S that tne culture arg religion-p. articular 15931093» charaaeri Per5;ecti~, Reservati d§%\ Charles A. Heatwole The study of the Rockingham County population is largely concerned with the preservation of a contemporary sectarian culture area. A key conceptual premise (which is substantiated) is that the fundamental traits which differentiate sectarian culture areas from surrounding territory are a result of religion-permeated values, or ideology, adhered to by the particular group in question. Hence, by understanding said ideology, one can not only explain the phenomena which characterize their culture area, but also gain valuable perspectives on the role of religion in its creation and preservation. The historical component not only traces the origin and development of Mennonite life, but also reveals inti- mate links between group ideology and the traits which have characterized traditional Mennonite culture areas. As part of a sanguinary persecution experience in sixteenth century Europe, Mennonites were excluded from the cities, denied formal education and non-agricultural work, and largely isolated by and from the broader society. In response to this hostile treatment, a Scripturally imbedded value system was devised which not only justified imposed conditions but also sanctioned aversion to the culture of the broader society. Of overriding cultural importance were values (ideOIOgy) which endorsed (a) rural, agrarian life; (b) separation from and nonconformity with the 33-22350: ‘3 brothI traits uh "a; rural :esiienti. {resultin With the I ('99:.353'1' and trans; Church an Cf behd‘ilg aaxizizing CCRtacts E T3 in Reckin CCESerVat _‘—— _.—.——'_-_~ -v— A 4 Charles A. Heatwole non-Mennonite world; (c) "simple" life-style; and (d) brotherhood among group members. Specific culture area traits which these eventually helped foster include (a) rural, agriculturally-based homesteads; (b) clustered residential distributions; (c) relatively small farms (resulting from subdivision to allow maximal conformity with the agricultural ideal); (d) separate group language ("Pennsylvania Dutch”); (e) anachronistic modes of dress and transportation (horse-and-buggy); and (f) simplistic church architecture. Guarding against change were a series of behavioral mechanisms (also an outgrowth of ideology) maximizing within-group bonds while minimizing external contacts and influence. The study of the contemporary Mennonite population in Rockingham County, Virginia, involves a comparison of conservative 01d Order Mennonites and pregressive Virginia Conference Mennonites. As is implied by the terms con- servative and progressive, the former group has been more prone than the latter to preserve traditional values and traits. Analysis is facilitated by a series of hypotheses designed to divulge the status of the traditional ideology and culture area characteristics among the two groups. These hypotheses are not ends in themselves but means towards understanding why and how the culture area is being preserved by one group, and deteriorated by the other. Po energes as ;:stify m t'ItlY, ma '35 while feasible 3 fluences, :inimizedI A faction, bit rathe chase. is mere 6 SOCiety. Mennonite within-gr Billy Ope 15 itSElf | FinnOnitJ Charles A. Heatwole For the Old Orders, the traditional ideology emerges as relatively intact and continuing to foster and justify the aforementioned culture area traits. Concomi- tantly, maximization of within-group bonds remains strong; and while in modern times it is no longer possible or feasible to completely nullify external contacts and in- fluences, these possible vectors of change are sufficiently minimized. A different picture is presented by the progressive faction. The traditional ideOIOgy has not been abandoned, but rather adapted to their philosophy of controlled change. As a result of this philosophy, progressive life is more and more reflecting the culture of the broader society. The traits which have historically denoted Mennonite culture areas have virtually disappeared. Within-group bonds are still stressed, but this is nor- mally operationalized by intercourse with similarly minded Mennonites. Contact minimization with the outside world is itself rather minimal. After a recapitulation, with emphasis on Rocking- ham County's Old Order Mennonites, brief reference is made to three other American religious bodies (the Amish, Mormons and Dutch—Reformed) which have also produced and preserved culture areas. This short detour demonstrates broad congruence with the Mennonite (particularly the Old Order Mennonite) experience, and facilitates the " :. .zst...g of gm. in ge. culture a: :reation 0 I1) 5.; Charles A. Heatwole listing of several tentative conclusions as to how reli— gion in general operates to produce and preserve sectarian culture areas. These suggest that religion facilitates creation of sectarian culture areas by: (l) differentiating a group of people to an extent that precipitates oppression and ostracism by elements of the broader society; (2) justifying the distinctive nature of group culture extant after persecution, while disdaining that of the broader society, and; (3) endorsing separation from the broader society in the physical as well as the cultural sense. Religion operates to preserve sectarian culture areas by: (l) attaching transcendental meaning to the distinctive values and culture of the group while condemning the alternatives offered by the broader society; (2) sanctioning maximization of within-group bonds; and (3) endorsing minimal contact with the larger world. The dissertation is concluded with implications and suggestions for future research. RELIGIW IN THE CREATION AND PRESERVATION OP SECTARIAN CULTURE AREAS: A MENNONITE EXAMPLE BY 0 Charles Agofieatwole A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State university in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of soc-ma or sameness Department of Geography 1974 CYN' ‘5 hi.) 55151377“. }A}o “ f”: . ' my people Lev-2: aortxzn-Jtoc ‘,:-‘s‘arus t: . a ' ~( .73.. . idea to the fl “.1350: :17- t_.;‘ L‘C;;'..2.'u’ 311‘ 2‘) .‘It.'/ t -: .. :Iv'gsd .;. “I‘mre apprecutioz: Ie (trot razqzae.‘ n. 'e '1; 61L": ' ‘. * Virginie Conference news-mung 3:1 tie-urinate» ‘aN -. m- eve-g1“ may . . 3mm.) who conuitate in exam -_~. Net interview date the, ””409 ' in the author” e voter;- ee we. «inan- xv' u I 1‘ am “0”: about” Ma a :ehulous Tze autho: these lai then ASS rn Order An. A . F“ ‘ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people have contributed towards transforming a nebulous idea to the finished product contained herein. The author wishes to take this opportunity to acknowledge these ladies and gentlemen and express his gratitude for their assistance. Sincere appreciation is first extended to the 01d Order and Virginia Conference Mennonites in Rockingham County (Virginia) who constitute the sample population. The crucial interview data they supplied is matched, if not surpassed, in the author's memory by their hospitality and graciousness. Other Rockingham County residents, both Mennonites and non-Mennonites, provided critical information. A note of appreciation is accordingly extended to the following people: Bishop Glendon Blosser; Mr. and Mrs. Roy Bowman; Mr. and Mrs. Wade Bowman; Professor Harry Brunk; Mr. Roy Burkholder; Mr. E. B. Craun; Professor Ernest Gehman; Reverend Samuel Jantzen; Reverend Alvin Kenagy; Mr. Wilmer Landis; Mr. Gilbert Miller; Mr. and Mrs. Reuben s. Rhodes; Bishop and Mrs. Justus Showalter; Professor Grant Stoltzfus; and Bishop and Mrs. Paul Wenger. iii ‘ U. Doctoral neat duri Lie authoj J “4 ‘V ‘ ; Jefk not H ‘ Dr. Daniel Jacobson, chairman of the author's Doctoral Guidance Committee, provided unceasing encourage— ment during the course of the project now completed. While the author's period of degree candidacy was stimulating and fulfilling, it was not without occasional turmoil. Dr. Jacobson's counsel during these episodes in particular will be long remembered. Other members of the Guidance Committee were Drs. John Hunter, Ian Matley and David Stephenson from the Department of Geography, and Dr. Mary Schneider from the Department of Religious Studies. The interest, sugges- tions and contributions of these people are likewise greatly appreciated. Sherman Hollander, Staff Cartographer, Department of Geography, rendered invaluable assistance in base map preparation and lettering; and Sandi Bettis typed the final manuscript. The quality of their contributions is self-evident. On a broader note, the author thanks the Department of Geography, Michigan State University, and the National Science Foundation for the Traineeship which largely made the author's graduate school experience possible. Finally, special words of appreciation are due to four people who, with Dr. Jacobson, are felt to have been most instrumental in making this dissertation a reality. iv “I 513035 Hid College, 1 3: access went well ‘u' - M m Count CP’eration Ber inn: E655 help '1 EEatwOle Sim-fie. Miss Grace Showalter, head librarian at the Menno Simone Historical Library and Archives, Eastern Mennonite College, provided countless services, suggestions and data, or access thereto. Her assistance, which time and again went well beyond the call of her professional responsi- bilities, is gratefully acknowledged. Mrs. Mildred Suter, the author's aunt and Rocking- ham County resident, provided the all-important "base of operations" during the field work phase of the research. Her innumerable expressions of hospitality and thoughtful- ness helped make that period very pleasant. The author's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Warren R. Heatwole, in ways both abstract and tangible, contributed significantly to all of the author's graduate school achievements. To them is offered a heartfelt "Thank you." LIST OF T 1:5? 0? E CEAPTER 1.1 II. TABLE OF LIST OF TABLES . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . CHAPTER I. II. III. INTRODUCTION ' Geography and Religion Background to the Study CONTENTS Statement of Problem . Problem Framework . Choice of Denomination Choice of Study Area . Organization and Data Sources Hypotheses . THE MENNONITES IN The Reformation The Early Swiss Persecution and EUROPE: "Menn Flight from the Citie The Swiss Brethren in the Seventeenth 1500-1700 onites" and Early Eighteenth Centuries . Ideology and Culture in the European A Summary . Hearth: MENNONITE SETTLEMENT OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA AND ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA . . The Pennsylvania Settlement Mennonite Culture in Early A Summary . Pennsylvania: Out-migration from Pennsylvania The Beginnings of Mennonite Settlement in the Shenandoah Valley vi Page viii 48 48 63 64 65 '1‘ II I ”A foul...k Chapter IV. \ 31133133: Chapter Mennonite Life in Rockingham County to 1900 . . . . . . . . Schism . . . . Old Orders and Progressives to 1950 . Old Orders and Progressives at Mid-Century: A Summation . . . . IV. IDEOLOGY AND CULTURE OF THE PRESENT OLD ORDER AND PROGRESSIVE MENNONITES IN ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA . . . Interview Procedure and Sample Design . Hypotheses Relative to Traditional Mennonite Ideology . Traditional Ideology Among Old Order and Progressive Mennonites. A Summation . . . . Hypotheses Relative to Traditional Mennonite Culture Areas . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . v D CONCLUS IONS . I C O I I I O O O Recapitulation . . . . . Religion in the Creation and Preservation of the Old Order Mennonite Culture Area . . . . . Examples of Other American Religious Groups Associated with Culture Areas Religion in the Creation and Preservation of Sectarian Culture Areas: Scenario and Conclusions . . . . . . Implications and Suggestions for Future Research . . . . . . APPENDICES Appendix A. CHI SQUARE . . . . . . . . . . B. QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 69 81 90 92 92 98 129 129 169 171 171 174 180 183 185 189 193 198 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Households and Sample by Congregation . . . 99 2. Locational Stratification by Congregation . . . . . . . . . . 100 3. Occupational Stratification by Congregation . . . . . . . . . . 101 4. Amount of Education Desired for Children by Sampled Heads of Households . . . . 108 5. Utilization of Selected Information Sources by Sampled Households . . . . . 114 6. Use of No—Tillage Corn by Sampled Farmers I O D I l I O 0 O O U I 124 7. Self-Perception of Innovativeness by Sampled Farmers . . . . . . . . . 126 8. Occupations of Heads of Sampleable Households . . . . . . . . . . . 134 9. Proficiency in "Pennsylvania Dutch" Among Sampled Heads of Households . . . . . 155 viii Figure 1 Re: I 2 Rhj | 3 Me. I 4 MeI 5 Re. | 6' Sdl 7. S 8. S. 9- I". PI 11. SI 12. j 13. 1 l4. LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. 2. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Rockingham County, Virginia . . . . . Rhineland Europe After the Peace of Westphalia, 1648 . . . . . . . Mennonite Migration from Europe to the Shenandoah Valley, 1683-1800 . . . Mennonite Settlement, 1800 . . . . . Residences of Old Order and Progressive Mennonites, 1900 . . . . . . . . Sampled Churches . . . . . . . . Sampleable Residences of Old Order and Progressive Mennonites . . . . . . Sampled Residences of Old Order and Progressive Mennonites . . . . . . Mountain View School (Old Order) . . . Partial Campus View, Eastern Mennonite College . . . . . . . State Residential Preferences: Old Order Mennonites . . . . . . State Residential Preferences: Progressive Mennonites . . . . . . Mennonite Population by State . . . . Landscape: Western Rockingham County . Old Order Mennonite Residences as Percent of Total Residences Per Square Mile . Page 15 38 51 70 83 95 102 103 112 112 117 118 119 133 138 20. 21. 22. 23s 24. 25. 28. We Pi Ha Figure 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Progressive Mennonite Residences as Percent of Total Residences Per Square Mile . The Old Order Mennonite Core Area An Old Order Farmstead . . . . . . Destination of Most Recent Trip Outside the State of Virginia Taken by Old Order Mennonites . . . . . . Destination of Most Recent Trip Outside the State of Virginia Taken by Progressive Mennonites . . . . . Destination of Longest Trip Ever Taken by Old Order Mennonites . . . . . Destination of Longest Trip Ever Taken by PrOgressive Mennonites: United States Destinations . . . . Destination of Longest Trip Ever Taken by Progressive Mennonites: Foreign Destinations . . . . . . Pleasant View Mennonite Church (Old Order) . . . . . . . . . Weavers Mennonite Church (Virginia Conference) . . . . . . . . . Park View Mennonite Church (Virginia Conference) . . . . . Harrisonburg Mennonite Church (Virginia Conference) . . . . . Horse-and-Buggy . . . . . . . . Page 139 143 146 147 148 150 151 152 161 161 163 163 168 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Geography and Religion It has been observed that "among the phenomena forming or reflecting the areal differences in culture with which [geographers] are so intimately concerned, few are as 1 This statement, potent and sensitive as religion." offered by a Past-President of the Association of American Geographers, would seem to command the endorsement of many of his fellow professionals. For in recent years a sub- stantial and growing number of geographers have directed their scholarly attention to the stimulating interface between their discipline and religion. Geography has been defined as the "description and explanation of the areal differentiation of the earth's 1Wilbur Zelinsky, "An Approach to the Religious Geography of the United States: Patterns of Church Member— ship in 1952, " Annals of the Association of American Geographers, LI (3une, I961),139. uxiace.‘ experien; that prac nat: 'ut a wa tion '§909rap Direlig 3E eart 93tible POI, as of ( rel; 58r1 not whe' dri ‘5 reli gecgrap culture \‘-‘~‘ St_ rial Lana \ York: surface.‘2 Religion has been succinctly defined as "the experience of the supernatural,"3 and more fully as that part of culture composed of shared beliefs and practices which not only identify or define the super— natural and the sacred and man's relationship thereto, but which also relate them to the known world in such a way that the group is provided with moral defini- tions as to what is good and what is bad. In combination, then, one may speak of the I'geography of religion" as the description and explanation of religious phenomena which characterize and differentiate the earth's surface. This academic niche is entirely com- patible with the general fabric of geographical research. For, as noted by Zelinsky, of central importance to geographers is the fact that religious institutions seek out, accentuate, and pre- serve differences among men and that differences, not only in the land but in the people who occupy it, whether they be real or imagined, are the meat and drink of geographers.5 As religion is a cultural phenomenon, it follows that the geography of religion falls under the general rubric of cultural geography. While this latter field is rather broad, one might generally define it as the study of the 2David Harvey, Ex lanation in Geo ra h (New York: St. Martin's Press, 196 , p. . 3Erich Isaac, "Religion, Landscape and Space," Landscape, Ix (Winter, 1959-60), 14. 4Glenn M. Vernon, Sociology of Religion (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962), pp. 55456. 5Zelinsky, "An Approach," p. 166. arigin, gtenomer. sultan a1 realms , this sta facet of charactfi by reng few: re: has his 6 For the “dent. origin, diffusion, distribution and impact of cultural phenomena from a geographical perspective. Streng has emphasized that "the religious and the cultural aspects of man's existence are not two separate realms, but rather are in each other."6 The importance of this statement to geographers is the implication that any facet of culture (besides religion itself) which gives character to an area might be explainable to some degree by religion. Many research efforts from the geographical literature could be cited in support of this notion. A few, reflecting four aspects of culture, should suffice. Tuan has shown that land use in Europe and China has historically reflected environmental attitudes fos- tered by Christianity and Eastern Religions respectively.7 For the Middle East, de Planhol has linked aversion to sedentary agriculture with Islamic prescriptions.8 In the area of settlement, Sopher has pointed to the grid pattern of Mormon towns as a terrestrial 6Frederick J. Streng, Understandin Reli ious Man (Belmont, Calif." Dickenson PEEIIsHIng Company, Inc., I969), p. 82. 7Yi-Fu Tuan, "Discrepancies Between Environmental Attitude and Behavior: Examples from Europe and China," Canadian Geographer, XII (1968), 176-91. 8Xavier de Planhol, The World of Islam (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1959), pp. 42-43. inglma 13:12;ng mated orients! | nations Defiant Probabl mate as implantation of the sacred City of Zion.9 The compactness of Dutch-Reformed and Amish communities has been associ- ated with a desire to remain separate from the "sinful" influences of the outside world.10 Fickeler has demon- strated that in many parts of the world the coloring and orientation of certain buildings reflect religious notions.11 In what may be taken as a summary statement, Deffontaines has even gone so far as to write, "It is probably rare that a system of settlement lacks any inti- mate association with a religious regime."12 The distribution of languages may also reflect the influence of religion. The relationship between Arabic and Islam is perhaps the most notable example. Somewhat more subtle is the connection between the Romance 9David E. Sopher, Geography of Religions (Englewood Cliffs, NoJa : Prentice’fia ’ Inc. I p P. o loElaine M. Bjorklund, "Ideology and Culture Exemplified in Southwestern Michigan," Annals of the Association of American Geo ra hers, LIV (June, I961), 227—3I; and AIice T. M. RecEIin, "The Utilization of Space by the Nappanee, Indiana Old Order Amish: A Minority Group Study" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Michigan, 1970). 11Paul Fickeler, "Fundamental Questions in the Geography of Religions," in Readings in Cultural GeOgraphy, ed. by Philip L. Wagner and Marvin W. Mikesell (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), pp. 98-103. 12Pierre Deffontaines, "The Religious Factor in Human Geography: Its Force and Limits," Diogenes, II (Spring, 1953), 29. language language had an 6 ideas. oftumez notions §90grapf Practice QGCgrap) the 0th: FIGm th force . \ languages and the sanctification of Latin as a liturgical language by the Roman Catholic Church.13 The geography of plant and animal domestication has had an especially intimate relationship with religious ideas. Sopher, for example, has linked the distribution of tumeric in Southeastern Asia and the Pacific with 14 notions of magic and fertility. Isaac has coupled the geography of various types of cattle with ancient cultic 15 He has also associated the historical geography of the citron with Jewish ritual needs.l6 On practices. the other side of the domestication coin, an entire book has been devoted to the geography of food avoidances.17 From this perspective, too, religion emerges as a driving force. 13Sopher, Geogrgphy of Religions, p. 71. 14David E. Sopher, 'Tumeric: A Geographical Investigation of Cultural Relations in Southeast Asia," Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, 15Erich Isaac, "Religious Factors in the Geography of Animal Husbandry," Diogenes, XLIV (Winter, 1963), 59-80. 16Erich Isaac, "The Citron in the Mediterranean: A Study in Religious Influences," Economic Geography, xxxv (January, 1959), 71-78. 17Frederick J. Simoons, Eat Not This Flesh: Food Avoidances in the Old World (Madison: University of W sconsin Press, . the lite example! been de: :Edium which 9 searche establi Worthy dEriVeC of Chuz Cluding Staten.“ re t1". th ‘1 The above is by no means intended as a review of the literature on the geography of religion. In fact the examples given merely scratch the surface.18 But what has been demonstrated is that religion, acting through the medium of mankind, may animate many aspects of culture which give character to the earth's surface. The re- searches in this area have both attested to this fact and established the geography of religion as a legitimate and worthy concern of cultural geographers. Background to the Study The inspiration for the present study was largely derived from Zelinsky's 1961 article dealing with patterns of church membership in the United States.19 In the con— cluding section of his report he offers the following statement: From the scanty evidence available, we have reasonable grounds for proposing the hypothesis that religion is a significant element in the population geography of the United States, in the geography of a number of economic, social and cultural phenomena, and in the genesis and persistence of general cultural regions; but we have too little knowledge of the precise ways in which religion operates in these various 18For a more detailed literature review, see Sopher, Geography of Religions, and Jack Licate, “The " Geographic Study of Religion: A Review of the Literature (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Chicago, 1967). 19Wilbur Zelinsky, "An Approach to the Religious GeOgraphy of the United States: Patterns of Church Membership in 1952," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, I June, , - . directions. Devising ways to collect and interpret information for testing this hypothesis may prove to be one of . . . the most rewarding tasks awaiting the student of American cultural geography.2 Let us focus on the reference to cultural regions. Wagner and Mikesell have labeled the concept of culture area (synonymous with culture region) as one of the major themes which form the core of cultural geography.21 They define such areas as "territories inhabited at any given period by human communities characterized by particular cultures.'22 Implicit is the notion that particular cul- ture groups, in the act of exercising their culture, impart a relative homogeneity to the area they occupy and thus differentiate it from other areas. Relevant to this concept are two questions inti- mated in the Zelinsky passage. Does religion play a significant role in the creation and preservation of certain culture areas in the United States? If so, how? Zelinsky provides no answers to these questions. He does, however, suggest ”avenues of research" by which a cultural geographer might gain valuable perspectives on the role religion plays in shaping the individuality of peoples and :oIbid., p. 166. 21Philip L. Wagner and Marvin W. Mikese11,eds., Readings in Cultural Geography (Chicago: University of cago ress, o Po 221bid., p. s. regions. end (2) infield; grown a; u. U“; .- Ha'e “‘ “I 'Y cultfl \ 2: Amish, ' PEOples and 5.991 from o t} di$+. sing \ regions. Among them are (l) intensive local studies, and (2) detailed study of the historical geography of individual denominations.23 The literature on the geography of religion has grown appreciably since 1961; and within the context of the United States, various denominations have been studied by cultural geographers. Certain studies of the Mormons,24 25 6 have shown that these are Amish, and Dutch-Reformed2 peoples whose particular cultures have, at varying times and degrees, served to differentiate the areas they occupy from other parts of the country. As these groups are distinguished from their fellow countrymen primarily on 23Zelinsky, "An Approach," p. 167. 24Richard V. Francaviglia, “The Mormon Landscape: Definition of an Image in the American West," Proceedin s of the Association of American Geogra hers, II (I975), 59-61; Donald W. Meinig, "The Mormon CuIture Region: Strategies and Patterns in the Geography of the American West, 1847-1964," Appals of the Association of American Geographers, LV (June, 1965), 191-2261 25Alice T. M. Rechlin, "The Utilization of Space by the Nappanee, Indiana Old Order Amish: A Minority Group Study" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Michigan, 1970); James E. Landing, "Organization of an Old Order Amish - Beachy Amish Settlement: Nappanee, Indiana" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, The Pennsylvania State University, 1967); and Charles Lee Hopple, "Spatial Development and Internal Spatial Organization of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Plain Dutch Community" (unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, The Pennsylvania State University, 1971). 26Elaine M. Bjorklund, "Ideology and Culture Exemplified in Southwestern Michigan," Annals of the Associ- ation of American Geographers, LIV (June, 1964), 227-41. "F religi: religic cream QEIIEQ | 5085 re Ev; de ' o.‘ today religious grounds, they would seem to provide evidence that religion does, in fact, play a significant role in the creation and preservation of certain culture areas in the United States. But the question of mechanism still remains. How does religion operate to create and preserve such areas? Evidence from the geographical literature is as scant today as when Zelinsky raised the question. Statement of Problem This dissertation will examine a religious group (the Mennonites) which has traditionally produced culture areas. The research will include both a study of the historical geography of the denomination, plus an intensive local study of a community of believers (a contemporary culture area). The research has three purposes. First, it seeks to describe how the Mennonites originated and how their culture has been manifested over time. Second, it will examine a contemporary Mennonite culture area and investigate the role religion has played in its creation and preservation. Third, and based on the foregoing, the research will propose some tentative conclusions as to how religion in general acts to produce and preserve sectarian culture areas. In a; broadly mesh in this irami group posses and Spiritua ideolog} Attitude IdEOlOgE and ch01 It is a men Putting thi a Particula means by w} Characteri; Th with theSe QI‘OuP' the She netes‘ of the has has resuh QXCept Whe area (19%: \ 2 2 10 Problem Framework In approaching these questions the study will broadly mesh with the framework enunciated by Bjorklund.27 In this framework it is asserted that a given social group possesses an ideology which "stems from the mental 28 and spiritual life of man." She states that ideology refers to the set of ideas, concepts, values, attitudes, and goals accepted by a group of people. Ideology constitutes the bases for making decisions and choices affecting the ways of life and works.29 It is a mental construct providing a model for behavior. Putting this in a geographical context, the application of a particular ideology at a particular place is seen as a means by which an area may acquire certain cultural characteristics. That a religion-imbued ideology may correspond with these notions is demonstrated by Bjorklund's reference group, the Dutch-Reformed people of southwestern Michigan. She notes, for example, that the Dutch-Reformed attitude of the basic sinfulness of the outside world (ideology) has resulted in an avoidance of contact with outsiders except when necessary to gain a living. The result is an area devoid of taverns, “worldly” forms of entertainment, 27Ibid. 28Ibid., p. 227. ngbid. non-Dutch- Rei facilities it Three religious gm groups posse others to p: doubtful, {c an i“Dressi- aIEa if her than D‘dtch. out a QIOUE tare areels 0f the Stu nation Wm; the chOSen tioh . COr ll non-Dutch—Reformed homesteads and churches, as well as facilities for outsiders.3o Choice of Denomination Three criteria were considered in choosing a religious group for study. First, while all religious groups possess an ideology, some appear more likely than others to produce multi-faceted culture areas. It is doubtful, for example, that Bjorklund would have found such an impressive relationship between ideology and culture area if her study population had been Episcopalian rather than Dutch-Reformed. Hence, it was desirable to single out a group whose ideology would likely give rise to cul- ture areas. Second, in light of the historical dimension of the study, it was important to choose a sect or denomi- nation which possesses an appropriate literature. Third, the chosen people needed to be amenable to field observa- tion. Considering these criteria, the Mennonites were chosen. Why the Mennonites? Zelinsky has noted that on a miniature scale, there are scattered about the nation a number of small pietistic church members-- most notably those within the Mennonite fold--who have gone to some lengths to shun the worldly ways of their neighbors and have created microregions strikingly different in form and function from the encompassing culture. 3°Ibid., p. 231. 31Zelinsky, 'An Approach,“ p. 162. While the te area, equiva such culture. different ir culture . " 32 map which is in order the Problem Incl fOllowing 1: tion of Chu and innovat rafusal of conscience Th Mennonite historiCal ness Of Me throughOm (l) . has foste. 12 While the term microregion is not synonymous with culture area, equivalence does obtain when a microregion exhibits such cultural characteristics as to make it ”strikingly different in form and function from the encompassing culture.'32 With the Mennonites, then, we have a religious group which has fostered culture areas. A short discourse is in order to place these people within the context of the problem framework. Included in traditional Mennonite ideology are the following principles: believer's (adult) baptism; separa- tion of church and state; rejection of "worldly" education and innovation; abstinence from involvement in politics; refusal of military service; nonresistance; and freedom of conscience. There are four additional elements of traditional Mennonite ideology worthy of special mention. They have historically seemed uppermost in producing the distinctive- ness of Mennonite areas and will often be referred to throughout the dissertation. Briefly, these include: (1) The church as a brotherhood of believers. This has fostered strong within-group bonds and has contributed 32Neither Zelinsky nor Wagner and Mikesell address the question of scale: i.e., how much land is necessary before one can speak of a culture area? Reluctance to dictate a threshold is probably advisable; for to engage in specifics--one square mile, for example--would likely o n a methodological Pandora's box. The definition g ven on page 7 suggests the amount of land may range from the massive to the minute. Moreover, it implies that the prime concern should be the degree of cultural homo- geneity, not scale. to the creatl limited cont (2) Sep Mennonite wo philosophy 0 rent of corn; innovations, dress. (3) San of life. Tl traditional] economic pm (4) A I or a Pridef which Say 5, had a pro f0 architectur groups of t It Re. Mennoni‘ces. 13 to the creation of clustered population distributions plus limited contacts with the outside world. (2) Separation from and nonconformity with the non- Mennonite world. This has lent itself to a traditional philosophy of noninteraction with "outsiders," establish- ment of compact communities, rejection of "worldly" innovations, and preservation of anachronistic styles of dress. (3) Sanctification of the rural, agricultural way of life. This has resulted in the Mennonites' being a traditionally rural-based people. It has also limited economic pursuits. (4) A life-style which condemns signs of ostentation or a prideful appearance. This is an ideological factor which says, in effect, "We are a simple people." It has had a profound impact on Mennonite styles of dress, church architecture, and the continued use by some Mennonite groups of the horse-and-buggy. It seems hardly surprising that the presence of microregions ”strikingly different in form and function from the encompassing culture“ could be associated with people possessing such an ideology. Regarding the literary criterion, the American Mennonites are the subject of a literature whose volume is out of all proportion to the population it describes. Credit for this situation goes to the several Mennonite colleges, hi quantity of these auSpic reputation. Fin * tribution 0 several Eas Close Perso kph—anitalr 14 colleges, historical societies and publishing houses. The quantity of books, magazines and journals produced under these auspices is matched only by their scholarly reputation. Finally, on amenability to observation, the dis- tribution of Mennonites exhibits a clustering in parts of seVeral Eastern and Midwestern states where the author has close personal contacts. Choice of Study Area The Mennonite population chosen for the intensive local study is found in Rockingham County, Virginia. Rock ingham, one of Virginia's larger counties, is located in tlne center of the Shenandoah Valley (Fig. 1). This area was chosen for several reasons. First, the author's surname has its American hearth in this area and is lat:Lilmately related to local Mennonite history.33 It was reasoned that this factor alone would be of inestimable value in facilitating access to the local population. SeQth, the size of the Mennonite population in Rockingham County is about 3,000 persons, which suggested amenability to detailed study. Third, the presence of Eastern Menno- nitg College in Harrisonburg, the county seat, promised a rich . . . and readily available repository of material relevant 33Harry A. Brunk, "Heatwole," The Mennonite En Tia? elopedia, Vol. II (Scottdale, Pa.: The Mennonite 3.3 mg House, 1956), p. 683. >FZDOU (.2232) §thesis. 1d. Relative to progressives, Old Order Mennonites' residential preferences exhibit greater in- clination towards states having the largest populations of fellow believers. R‘fiiiidential preferences" were determined by asking inter- v1ea‘vwees to identify two states (Virginia excluded) in which they would most like to live. The hypothesis will .__‘_“-______________ in 37A brief explanation of chi square is provided Appendix A. be tested v ences for e distributio lived in is fellow bell to some ext separation The ideals operdtlona: changing 54 inmvative: 0f theSe i by eximini iMOVatiOn again. Chi differmce If. C F F This hYpot of “Oncon f Square Wi 22 be tested via cartographic means, comparing state prefer- ences for each group with a map showing national Mennonite distribution. Individual Mennonite families have seldom 11'. ved in isolation from other Mennonites. The presence of fellow believers is important. Hence, the hypothesis will, to some extent, measure the ideals of brotherhood and separation from the non-Mennonite world. le. Old Order farmers are less innovative than progressive farmers. The ideals of nonconformity and simplicity have often been operationalized by an aversion to the innovations and Changing styles of the broader society. The measuring of innoyativeness will provide some indication of the status Of these ideals. The hypothesis will be operationalized by examining adoption of no-tillage corn (a recent farming iniliovation). The interviews will provide the data, and, agfiim, chi square will test the existence of a significant dif ference. 1f. Old Order Mennonites place more emphasis on preserving the traditional style of dress than progressive Mennonites. This hypothesis, like the last, is related to the ideals of nonconformity and simplicity. Interview data and chi square will be utilized to test the hypothesis. It might be argued that the foregoing general and 5specific hypotheses are somewhat shallow since Old Orders by definition are more traditional and conservative-minded nan their readily aci hypotheses and cultur istics of and of the them. Be Mennonite in OIdEr. d09$ not 1 mill una even the n StIEam Amr Silized. fact that ingly, 801 than 0the, traits an change. areas ass tradition 23 than their progressive counterparts. This point is readily acknowledged. However, it is felt that these hypotheses will facilitate an understanding of the values and culture of the two groups. Moreover, the character- istics of a traditional Mennonite culture area do not, in and of themselves, reveal the value system which produces them. Before proceeding to the hypotheses on traditional Mennonite culture area characteristics, two comments are in order. The first concerns the word "traditional." This does not imply a gamut of traits which has remained vir- tually unaltered over the centuries; for the culture of even the most conservative Mennonites, like that of main- stream American society, has been dynamic rather than fos- silized. What this does attest to and acknowledge is the fact that Mennonites are not a monolithic group. Accord- ingly, some Mennonite bodies have shown greater propensity than others to perpetuate certain long-standing values, traits and customs with a comparatively small degree of change. In this sense, the cultural characteristics and areas associated with such Mennonites may be termed traditional. The second matter is the specific characteristics of traditional Mennonite culture areas. While this topic has not been directly addressed up to now, most of the features have been mentioned. In their totality, these features steads, (I tively sm vania Dut transport Church ar 24 features include: (a) rural, agriculturally based home- steads, (b) clustered residential distribution, (c) rela- tively small farms, (d) separate group language (“Pennsyl- vania Dutch"), (e) anachronistic modes of dress and transportation (horse-and-buggy), and (f) distinctive church architecture.38 Relative to traditional culture area characteris- tics, the following general hypothesis is offered. 2. As compared with progressive Mennonites, Old Order Mennonites exhibit more indices of a traditional Mennonite culture area. Specific sub-hypotheses designed to operationalize and test this general hypothesis include the following. 2a. Old Order Mennonites exhibit a significantly greater proportion of both rural and farm based homesteads than progressive Mennonites. This hypothesis will be tested by means of both chi square and cartographic analysis. Data will be provided by field observation and interviews. 2b. The distribution of Old Order homesteads is more clustered than that of progressive Mennonite homesteads. This hypothesis will be tested by comparing two maps de- picting homestead locations of respective group members. Data will be provided by field observation. 38The specific characteristics of traditional dress and church architecture will be described in future chapters. 2c. C Data wil acreage Appraise test for 2d. IntErvi Ccmearj While 1 Charac will 3 Hennon faCiij 2e IntEr teSt 21 25 2c. Old Order Mennonite farm sizes are significantly smaller than those of progressive Mennonites. Data will be garnered from aerial photography as well as acreage statistics made available by the Rockingham County Appraiser. Chi square will be applied to these data to test for a significant difference. 2d. As opposed to progressive Mennonites, Old Order macro travel behavior exhibits a lesser degree of contact with the non-Mennonite world. Interview data will be used to test this hypothesis. Map comparison will constitute the basic means of analysis. While travel behavior per se is not an overt, visual characteristic of traditional Mennonite culture areas, we will see that minimization of contacts with the non— Mennonite world has been a traditional behavioral mechanism facilitating cultural survival. 2e. Old Order Mennonites possess a greater degree of proficiency in "Pennsylvania Dutch" than progressives. Interview data and chi square will again be utilized to test this hypothesis. 2f. The Old Order Mennonites are perpetuating the traditional styles of church architecture, dress, and mode of transportation to a greater degree than are the progressive Mennonites. This hypothesis will be tested by means of photography and reports based on the author's field observations. While it would be possible to test the degree of difference with chi square, sufficient. To themselves effect lini- perneated : queStion, 1 role the a. serving m for Propos in Cleneral areas. In testing the on the ini the begin: hYPOthese in APPEnd 26 chi square, said photography and observations will prove sufficient. To reiterate, these hypotheses are not ends in themselves but rather means to an end. For if cause and effect links can be established between the religion- permeated ideology and culture area characteristics in question, then we will not only be able to comment on the role the Mennonite faith has played in creating and pre- serving the case study culture area, but also have grounds for proposing some tentative answers as to how religion in general acts to produce and preserve sectarian culture areas. Interview data, again, will be instrumental in testing many of these hypotheses. Specific information on the interview procedure and sample design is given at the beginning of Chapter IV, which addresses the above hypotheses. A facsimile of the questionnaire is presented in Appendix B. Te 1500-1700. territorie stretches hates def: in the his and zwingl Per56cm;iC and develd CHAPTER II THE MENNONITES IN EUROPE: 1500-1700 Temporally, this chapter deals with the period 1500—1700. Geographically, it concerns those states and territorieswhichthen bordered the middle and upper stretches of the Rhine River. These time and space coordi- nates define a place and period which stands as a watershed in the history of Western Man. This was the era of Luther and Zwingli, Reformation and Counter-Reformation, religious persecution and warfare. Each deeply affected the origin and development of the Mennonites. The Reformation The Mennonites are one of several Protestant groups born of the Reformation. The beginning of the Reformation is usually dated 1517, the year Martin Luther (1483-1546) presented his Ninety-five Theses for dis— cussion. This was a recognized procedure of the day, and Luther's intent at the time was not to found a new church but rather to reform the old one.1 To Luther, the Roman 1Harold s. Bender and C. Henry Smith, Mennonites and Their Herita e (revised ed.; Scottdale, Pa.: T e Hera Press, ), p. 11. 27 Catholic C indulgence tioning. eventually exconnunic T‘r religious other refc Calvin, m Church's , dictator C man could with Scri) final sou: T1 the Pione- 1531), F what has the EVang following Wthern Luther's relatlons APParent] lieVers c 28 Catholic Church's tOp-heavy administration and the sale of indulgences were two factors which invited serious ques- tioning. His outspokenness on these and other matters eventually resulted in a papal condemnation for heresy and excommunication from the church. This latter action led Luther to found a separate religious movement, which in turn provided a model for other reformers. Like Luther, these men, such as John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli and John Knox, rejected the medieval Church's roles of intercessor between God and man, and dictator of ultimate religious truth. Rather, they felt man could communicate directly with God through Christ, with Scripture being available to all and serving as the final source of authority. The Mennonites originated as indirect products of the pioneering work of Luther and Ulrich Zwingli (1484— 1531). Following his excommunication, Luther established what has since became known as the Lutheran Church, or the Evangelical Church of Germany. Within a few years following 1525, this movement spread throughout most of northern and central Germany, plus all of Scandinavia. Luther's positions on church membership and church-state relations are of some importance to the present discussion. Apparently, Luther's original ideal was a church of be- lievers only, modeled after the early Christian Church. gag—.4. But wf morals by so of the to the According] state chur aterritoz retained. and the us failed to A: LuthEr's 1 tantism be Zwingli' \ and his f< Luthel’ans First: as that the . WY Sm a much St divergEHC lians SOn ( 31‘8le (. \ 29 But when he saw the low state of spirituality and morals among the masses of peOple, he feared that by so doing most of the peOple would be left outside of the evangelistic church, and would thus be left to the Catholic Church.2 Accordingly, Lutheranism was established as a universal state church. The medieval right of the secular ruler of a territory to determine the religion of the ruled was retained. Moreover, universal infant baptism was decreed, and the use of force sanctioned to persecute those who failed to accept the state religion. As previously noted, other reformers followed Luther's lead. In northern Switzerland, Reformed Protes- tantism became dominant. The key figure was Ulrich Zwingli, who preached in Zurich from 1519 to 1531. Zwingli and his followers were in general agreement with the Lutherans. However, the parties differed on two matters. First, as Opposed to the Lutherans, the Zwinglians felt that the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper were only symbolic, carrying no connotation of the “Real Pre- sence“ of Christ. Second, the Zwinglians tended to have a much stricter policy towards righteous living. These divergences were sufficient to keep Lutherans and Zwing- lians somewhat apart. The Early Swiss ”Mennonites" One of Zwingli's most ardent followers was Conrad Grebel (1498-1526). Born in Zurich of a wealthy and 21bid., p. 15. ” influentia men of his years‘ stu Grebel reti under the : enthusiast reform. Bu ZWingli or accept the He also f. bEliEVQIS bbl'ecmer' bEIievinc' feSSion < Within 0 hem; in Persuasj literal EOImail 30 influential family, Grebel received an education that few men of his time could afford or indulge in. Following six years' study at the universities of Basel, Vienna and Paris, Grebel returned to his native city in 1520. There he came under the influence of Zwingli, was converted by him, and enthusiastically devoted himself to the cause of church reform. But Grebel eventually found himself at odds with Zwingli on several points. Particularly, Grebel could not accept the idea of an established Protestant state church. He also felt that the church should be a brotherhood of believers only, as was the case in the first century A.D. Moreover, Grebel rejected the practice of infant baptism, believing that only adults should be baptized upon con- fession of faith. This latter principle carried the conno- tation of re-baptism of those who had received this sacra- ment in infancy. Hence, Grebel and people of similar persuasion on this matter were called "Anabaptists," which, literally interpreted, means "re-baptizers.” Grebel formally broke his ties with Zwingli in 1524 and soon attracted his own following under the co-leadership of Felix Manz (1498-1527) and Georg Blaurock (1490-1529). ILike Grebel, Manz and Blaurock had received formal education.3 3Christian Neff and Harold S. Bender, "Manz, Felix," The Mennonite Encyclopedia, V01. III (Scottdale, Pa.: The Mennonite PubliShing House, 1957), pp. 472-74; and Christian Neff, "Blaurock, Georg,” The Mennonite Enc - clo edia, Vol. I (Scottdale, Pa.: The Mennonite Pubfishing House, I955), pp. 354-59. T'm founders 0 however, d when it di in Switzer M496-156l Central 0: Slightly 1 The Swiss themselves SWiss Bre’ SynonYmom fiablY be I | (v RhiflEland I majority {Ollowing heritage 31 These men, Grebel in particular, were among the founders of the Mennonite Church. The term "Mennonite," however, did not come into usage until about 1545. And when it did it was not immediately applied to these people in Switzerland. The appellation stems from Menno Simons (1496-1561), a converted Catholic priest who played a central organizational role in the church's other (and slightly later) center of develOpment, The Netherlands.4 The Swiss group in the early years simply referred to themselves as ”brethren,” or by the proper name, ”The Swiss Brethren.” Though divergent in name, they were synonymous in faith with the Dutch group and may justi- fiably be placed within the Mennonite fold.5 (Though the story of the faithful in the lower Rhineland and northern Germany is of importance to general Mennonite history, it need not concern us here. The vast majority of the people we shall be dealing with in the following chapters trace their ancestry and cultural heritage back to the Swiss group.) 4For a brief overview of Mennonite history in this locale see Bender and Smith, Mennonites and Their 5C. Henry Smith, ”The Mennonites in Europe," in Mennonite Church History, ed. by J. S. Hartzler and Daniel—Rauffman (Scottdale, Pa.: Mennonite Book and Tract Society, 1905), pp. 97-98. 32 The new movement rapidly gained converts; and with the aid of an active lay missionary effort it spread throughout much of the German-speaking world. Special strength in numbers obtained in the northern Swiss cantons. ”By 1527 there were thirty-eight congregations in the canton of Zurich alone, and nearly as many in Berne."6 Urban areas, as centers of intellectual activity, became foci of the movement. The Brethren drew converts from all levels of society. All occupations were represented with those associated with urban life being most numerous. The results of one vocational study suggest that no more than 6 percent of the early Swiss Brethren were farmers.7 But the Spectacular growth of the Swiss Brethren was short- lived.8 In 1525 the first omen of difficult times surfaced in Zurich. While the theological differences between the Zwinglians and the Swiss Brethren may impress us as no major cause for alarm, the opposite was the case in Zurich in the early sixteenth century. To the pro-Zwingli City Council the Swiss Brethren were a serious threat to the 6C. Henry Smith, The Mennonite Immigration to Pennsylvania in the Eighteenth Century (Norristown, Pa.: The Norristown Press, 1929), p. 14. 7Robert Kreider, "Vocations of Swiss and South German Anabaptists,” Mennonite Life, VIII (January, 1953), 41. 8Unfortunately, reliable Mennonite population fig- ures for this and other periods in Europe are not available. 33 established order. In 1525 the Council formally condemned Grebel and his followers, forbidding them to meet, teach, or have fellowship together.9 Grebel and others were later expelled from the city. Why should the Swiss Brethren have so aroused the ire of the local authorities? The theological points pre- viously mentioned provide a partial answer. But the Brethren's beliefs in the literal interpretation and ulti- mate truth of Scripture led to the adOption of other friction-producing principles. For example, the Brethren entertained a firm belief in nonresistance in accordance with Christ's precepts against violence and war. This, by extension, meant they were opposed to conscription. They also refrained from oath-taking, which in those days normally included affirmation of allegiance to secular authority. Moreover, The Swiss Brethren emphasized non- conformity with "the world.“ This satisfied the injunction of Romans 12:2 ("Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God."). Application of this principle would eventually assume several rather interesting manifestations. In the late 1520's, however, it generally meant that members should dress very plainly. A contemporary wrote of the Brethren, "They shun costly clothing . . ., clothe 9Bender and Smith, Mennonites and Their Heritage, p. 21. 34 themselves with coarse cloth and cover their heads with 10 broad felt hats." So attired, they were easily recog- nized. "Their lack of weapons also made them easily identifiable.”11 Recalling that religious fervency ran high in that era, and that church and state were intimately linked, the status of the Swiss Brethren in the eyes of the Zurich authorities becomes clearer. The Brethren's views on baptism and church membership were very much at odds with the established religion. Additionally, the notions of separation of church and state, nonresistance (refusal of conscription), and rejection of oath-taking were easily interpreted as indices of treason. Persecution and Flight from the Cities These conditions were not limited to Zurich. Where- ever they lived the Swiss Brethren had become anathematized. Disloyalty to the established church was heresy; disloyalty to the state was treason. Both offenses were punishable by death.12 10John C. Wenger, "Dress," The Mennonite Enc clo- pedia, Vol. II (Scottdale, Pa.: The Mennonite Publishing House, 1959), p. 101. 11John C. Wenger, ”The History of Non-Conformity in the Mennonite Church,” Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference on Mennonite Cultural PrOblems (North Newton, Kansas: Bethel College Press, 1944), p. 46. 12C. Henry Smith, "Mennonites and Culture," Mennonitegguarterly Review, XII (April, 1938), 72. 35 Thus began one of the severest stories of persecu- tion in recorded history. By 1535 over five thousand of the Brethren had been executed in Switzerland and adjacent areas, Austria and the Tyrol in particular.13 Persecution was especially rampant in the cities, where the unarmed, simple-dressed Brethren were easily identified and dealt with. Needless to say, their philOSOphy of nonresistance hardly mitigated the onslaught. Nor were they spared by living in Roman Catholic cantons and territories. There the Swiss Brethren were executed "simply as Protestants, rather than specifically as Anabaptists."l4 These conditions persisted for nearly a century. Eventual cessation was the result of both a change in official policy plus the near total elimination of the perceived menace. Thousands had been killed or imprisoned while many others had been "persuaded” to accept the state religion. Extermination in central and southern Germany, as well as Austria, was complete by 1600, when “only a handful of Brethren were left in the back valleys and mountains of the Swiss Alps and surrounding Swiss territory.“15 13Bender and Smith, Mennonites and Their Heritage, p. 47. l4Cornelius J. Dyck, ed., An Introductign to Mennonite History (Scottdale, Pa.: The Herald Press, T967), p. 39. 15 Bender and Smith, Mennonites and Their Heritage, p. 49. 36 The reference to back valleys and mountains is indicative of one of the major results of the persecution experience: the beginning of a rural, agrarian way of life. The first Anabaptist congregations were all found in the big cities. It was only after the Brethren were driven under cover by persecution that they forsook the cities, and found refuge in remote country places and mountain fastnesses.16 This shift in residency is partially explained by forced urban-rural migration, but more importantly by the exter- mination of city folk, which left mostly the rural elements to carry on the faith. In some locales the change was cemented by decrees which forbade the Swiss Brethren from engaging in non-agricultural activities.17 Thus by the middle of the seventeenth century, a movement that had begun and blossomed in the cities, and been led by edu- cated, urbane peeple, found itself relegated to a rural environment and composed almost entirely of uneducated, lower class agriculturalists. The Swiss Brethren in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries All available evidence suggests that the Brethren took to the agrarian way of life with a zeal surpassed only 16C. Henry Smith, The Story of_the Mennonites (3rd ed., revised and enlarged by Cornelius Krahn; Newton, Kansas: Mennonite Publication Office, 1950), p. 16. 17Walter M. Kollmorgen, "The Agricultural Stability of the Old Order Amish and Old Order Mennonites of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania," American Journal of SociolOgy, XLIX (1943), 238. 37 by the practice of their religious beliefs. Forced to seek sustenance from poor mountain soils, traditional farming methods had to be discarded and better techniques devised. As a result the persecuted Brethren were among the first in central Europe to experiment with new methods of fertilizing the land, of feeding cattle, and of planting new crOps. When seclusion was no longer necessary, many of them removed to better farming sections, mainly the Rhineland of Germany, where they applied with remarkable results what they had learned in the poorer farming sections. Their diligence was soon noted, as were their improved techniques of farming. In time they were sought out as tenants, particularly by owners of large estates. Though resettlement took place in Hesse, Baden- Wurttemberg, Bavaria, and Alsace, the major emigration was directed towards the Palatinate (Fig. 2). This resulted from the invitation of the Protestant Count Palatine who was seeking proven agriculturalists to rejuvenate those 19 districts laid waste by the Thirty Years War. Though some Brethren had sought refuge there as early as 1527,20 the major emigration began in 1664 and continued for 21 several decades. Some 700 arrived in 1671. "Through their industry and sober and steady habits of life [the lerido ' pp. 238-390 19The war was ended by the Treaty of Westphalia, 1648. 20H. Frank Eshleman, Historic Background and Annals ofthe Swiss and German Pioneer Settlers of South- eastern Pennsylvania, and of Their Remote Ancestors, from the Middle Ages! Down to the Time of the Revolutionary War (Lancaster, 53.: 1917), p. 111. 21 Bender and Smith, Mennonites and Their Heritage, p. 60. 38 |648 . I l .I \ O 50 |———-——J Scurce: Palmer, Hist ricol Arm 0? the World . o _ ‘0 $1 \° \ l ..., '7: ed RHINELAND EUROPE AFTER THE PEACE OF WESTPHALIA ct \ . I, BADEN- WURRTEMBERG . ‘ . TY ROL .’ Zu.ricn . , .Bern . u' .,-’ SWITZERLAND V \. ' 1 [.1] )1, J/ l k. - ' i,u_u5j , , . .\. .’ '\° .l. O a ‘0 ’ \O \. (.\ 4'0}! 7- W \. . ...‘9°. . . .5?‘.’ N Figure 2 39 Brethren] soon transformed what had been a desolate wilder- ness to a garden of plenty."22 But this is not to suggest that life in the Pala- tinate represented an earthly paradise for the Swiss Brethren. Though bloody persecution was non-existent, certain restrictions remained to be coped with. They were forbidden by the church-state authorities to prosely- tize, accept outsiders into the church, or marry non- 23 Brethren. Educational opportunities were curtailed as the young peOple were banned from the universities and 24 denied vocational training in the guilds. They were prohibited from living in the cities without special permission, and were normally banned from the villages.25 Again, in some areas they were expressly forbidden to engage in non-agricultural activities. Thus a rural, agrarian existence, which persecution had previously imposed on the Brethren in Switzerland, was continued in the German Rhineland. 22Smith, “The Mennonites in Europe," p. 103. 23Walter M. Kollmorgen, Culture of a Contemporary Rural Community; The Old Order Amish ofiLancaster County, Péhnsylvania (WaShington, D.C.: United States Department of AgricuIture, Rural Life Studies No. 4, 1942), p. 17. 24E. Gordon Alderfer, "The Pioneer Culture of the Plain PeOple,” Mennonite Life, V (October, 1950), 30; and Smith, The Mennonite Immigration, p. 48. 25Smith, The Mennonite Immigration, p. 36; and Kollmorgen, Culture of a Contemporary Rural Community, p. 18. 40 Because they were banned from village life the Brethren tended to live on separate farm units, oftentimes estates. This has a positive effect on their pursuit of agriculture. As tenants on large estates they were pro- vided further Opportunities to experiment with new farming techniques. By comparison the average peasant of the day lived in an agricultural village where farming practices were strictly regimented and experimentation discouraged. Equally important in explaining the Swiss Brethren's agri— cultural superiority is the communication that was maintained between the scattered groups of this religious brotherhood. Through correspondence and visits between settlements in the Rhineland and in other parts of EurOpe, the Brethren learned of farming practices in many areas. Visits made to distant communities for the primary purpose of finding a mate served the secondary purpose of spread- ing knowledge of better farming methods. The net result was a greater store of agricultural information than the average village peasant who rarely if ever journeyed far from his home.26 But this period of relative peace and prosperity for the Swiss Brethren was rather short-lived. For reasons with which we need not concern ourselves, the Palatinate again became embroiled in religious (Catholic- Protestant) warfare during the period 1689-1697. The 26Kollmorgen, Culture of a Contemporary Rural Community, pp. 18-19. 41 suffering of the inhabitants was intense.27 At the termination of hostilities Protestantism in the Palatinate was in ruins; a Roman Catholic Elector assumed control of the territory even though most of the inhabitants were Reformed or Lutheran.28 For a brief period it appeared that a policy of general religious tolerance would be instituted. But such hopes soon evaporated. The Swiss Brethren (along with other Palatinate Protestants) were again subjected to persecution. This time the Oppression was not sanguinary but rather took the form of extreme harassment. Land rights were jeopardized and other oppressive measures were enforced. The Protestants were required to bend the knee at the passing of the Host, and to furnish flowers for the church festivals of their rivals; while the work of proselyting was carried on publicly by the Jesuits, who had been called in for that purpose. The Swiss [Brethren], . . . who for many years had found a refuge in the Palatinate, were now driven from the land. A diaSpora was preCipitated with emigration from the Rhineland commencing in the late seventeenth century and continuing throughout much of the eighteenth. The distances involved in these moves were much greater than the one previously mentioned; and in time the descendants 27A rather vivid description is given in Oscar Kuhns, The German and Swiss Settlements of Colonial Pennsylvania: A Study ofthe So-Called Pennsylvania Dutch (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1901), pp. 12-18. 28 Ibid., pp. 15 and 17. 291bid., p. 17. 42 of the Swiss Brethren would find themselves in such far- flung territories as the Ukraine, Canada, Mexico and Paraguay.3o Few would remain in the hearth areas. Our major concern, of course, is the emigration to North America, particularly colonial Pennsylvania. Several stimuli led to this movement. William Penn himself visited the Lower Rhineland around 1679. He "preached in many Mennonite congregations and influenced large numbers of them to emigrate with him to Pennsylvania."31 Thongh warfare temporarily impeded emigration, the human outpouring began again in the early decades of the eighteenth century. Penn's pamphlet describing his "Holy Experiment," along with promotional publications sanctioned by Queen Anne and George II. provided additional stimulants for migra- tion. Speculation, too, played a role as "shipowners saw the large sources of profit in thus transporting emigrants 30For information on Mennonite settlement in these locales, see: Bender and Smith, Mennonites and Their Herita e, pp. 67-72; John Horsch, Mennohites inEgrgpe, Vol. I of Mennonite History (2nd ed?) Scottdale, Pa.: Mennonite Publishing House, 1950), pp. 271-89; John Warkentin, "Mennonite Agricultural Settlements of Southern Manitoba," Geographical Review, XLIX (1959), 342-68; L. J. Burkholder, The Early Mennonite Settlements in Ontario,” Mennonite ggarterl Review, VIII (July, 1934), 103-22; Harry L. Sawatsky, T ey Sought a Colony: Mennonite Colonization in Mexico (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971); J. Winfield Fretz, Pilgrims in Paraguay (Scottdale, Pa.: The Herald Press, 1953); andiAnnemarie E. Krause, “Mennonite Settlement in the Paraguayan Chaco" (Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography Research Paper No. 25, 1952). 31Smith, "The Mennonites in EurOpe," p. 96. 43 [and] employed every means of attracting them."32 An estimated 5,000 made the trip to Pennsylvania between 1683 and 1750.33 The major port of embarkation for the New World was Rotterdam, a loqical point of departure for the Rhine- landers. Their co-religionists in The Netherlands went to great lengths to assist them. These Dutchmen had called themselves ”Mennonites” for many years, and in the process of transshipment and resettling the name was extended to those of Swiss stock. Thus with migration to America the appellation ”Swiss Brethren” was discarded and the term ”Mennonite" adopted. Ideolggyyand Culture in the European Hearth: A Summary The Swiss Brethren exhibited a transitory existence in EurOpe. Numbers were relatively small while members were scattered over a fairly large area. The only agglom- erations to speak of were small groups acting as tenants on the estates of noblemen. These circumstances negated the creation of Mennonite culture areas in the Rhineland. They did not, however, negate the formation of cultural 32Kuhns, The German and Swiss Settlements, p. 27; see also Ira D. Landis, “England Invited Mennonites to .America in 1717," Mennonite Historical Bulletin, XV (July, 1954), 5-6. 33L. J. Burkholder, ”The Early Mennonite Settle- ments in Ontario,” Mennonite Quarterly Review, VIII . I 44 characteristics which would become central elements Of Mennonite life. In fact, such characteristics were only encouraged by the chain Of events. But Specific aspects of Mennonite culture which evolved cannot be discussed independently of ideOlOgical formulation. The two were intimately related and reinforced one another. J In reviewing the develOpment Of Mennonite ideology .._ . O we encounter a curious fact: not all Of the principles which would constitute the traditional ideology were exhibited by the Swiss Brethren when they first came into being. True, the Brethren then valued adult baptism, separation Of church and state, nonresistance, freedom Of conscience, brotherhood, nonconformity and simplicity. But what of rejection Of formal education, separation from the world, or sanctification Of the rural, agrarian way Of life? If anything, in the incipient years the Brethren were characterized by the very Opposite. The original leaders were among the intelligentsia while the occupations Of most rank-and-file members suggest some degree of formal or vocational training. Far from being separate, these peOple were very much a part Of the world they lived in. Most were found in the cities; only a small minority were agriculturalists. Change occurred only after persecution; after the educated leadership had been killed Off; after the Brethren were hunted down in the cities and banned therefrom; after non-farm occupations were denied them; after they were forced into a rural existence. 45 These latter values were not among the original Mennonite principles. Rather, after lack Of education, isolation from the world, and agrarian life had been forced upon them, religion was used to justify and legit- imize the new conditions. It was only then that they became ideological components. Rationalization was found in Scripture. Separa- tion was bolstered by the passage, 'Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, and what communion 34 Lack Of education was sanc- hath light with darkness?" tioned by "the wisdom of the world is folly with God;" and agrarian life by ”God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multi- ply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish Of the sea and over the birds Of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”35 Parenthetically, the standard histories Of the Mennonite church allude to such rationalization but seem unwilling to categorically state that religion was used in this ruanner. Yet this conclusion is inescapable and has been endorsed by several contemporary scholars.36 In any event, 34II Corinthians 6:14. 35ReSpectively, I Corinthians 3:19 and Genesis 1:28. 365. Floyd Pannabecker, ”Environmental Factors Influencing Mennonites,” Proceediggs Of the Second (honference on Mennonite CulEural Problems (North Newton, iaansas: Bethel College Press, 1943), pp. 82-84; Prof. (Erant Stoltzfus, personal interview at Eastern Mennonite 46 with religious endorsement of separation from the world, rural, agrarian life, and rejection Of education (not to mention the forced imposition Of these conditions), contact with the larger world was minimized and conditions created for the establishment Of a relatively static culture. By the beginning Of emigration to North America, several aspects Of Mennonite culture (aside from the religious element per se) had made their appearance. Rural homesteads, pursuit Of agriculture, and rejection Of education had been adopted. Plain dress was also main- tained as a means Of stressing nonconformity. This tOO found Biblical sanction in the passages, “Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding Of hair, decoration Of gold, and wearing Of robes, but let it be in the hidden person Of the heart with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious;” and, again, ”Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing Of your mind that ye may prove what is that gOOd and acceptable and perfect will Of God.4y7 Additionally, High German, spoken by the Brethren in Switzerland and the Rhineland, was the common language. Though not a distinguishing factor in Europe, the language College, Harrisonburg, Va., Sept. 12, 1972; and Prof. James O. Lehman, personal interview at Eastern Mennonite College, Harrisonburg, Va., July 25, 1973. 37Respectively, I Peter 3:3-4, and Romans 12:2. 47 would assume great cultural importance in North America. Finally, extensive intra-fellowship travel and communica- tion, coupled with the doctrine Of separation, produced a vital binding function. The importance Of this function cannot be understated. For with the cessation Of perse- cution and advent Of religious liberty in eighteenth century Europe, the Opportunity to mingle more freely with the non-Mennonite world Obtained. This was hardly bene- ficial to the remaining European Mennonites. Indeed religious freedom proved as detrimental as religious persecution. Before the century ended, an estimated 80 percent Of the EurOpean membership left the Mennonite fold to join other churches.38 This defection, and the circumstances that produced it, would not be lost on the faithful who settled in Pennsylvania. 38Smith, ”The Mennonites in Europe," p. 94. MEN! CHAPTER III MENNONITE SETTLEMENT OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA AND ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA The Pennsylvania Settlement The promise Of religious freedom central to Penn's " Holy Experiment” attracted many oppressed sectarian groups tO southeastern Pennsylvania. The influx Of these peOple is strongly evidenced to this day, particularly by the much-described Old Order Amish and Old Order Mennonites of Lancaster and adjacent counties. An in-depth treatment of this settlement process is beyond the sc0pe of the present chapter. It has been fully documented elsewhere wi th several works being found in the geographical l~i—‘Zerature.l Yet some statements on Mennonite life in c2<>3L0nial Pennsylvania are necessary. For it was here that the faith was first permanently implanted on American 801 l--here that the first true Mennonite culture area came \ 'I 53 1Two notable examples are Lee Charles Hopple, thpatial Development and Internal Spatial Organization of (“3 Southeastern Pennsylvania Plain Dutch Community" Thnpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department Of Geography, Lee Pennsylvania State University, 1971), and James T. Homo“! The Best Poor Man's Country (Baltimore: The Johns Pkins Press,j972) . 48 into exi exgerier 1905 Bis his fell lineage in Penn: original settlemt these a] America "MEHist group d New Wor “d was landers Philade centUrz inltia.‘ 49 And it was from this place, people and (In into existence. experience that the Rockingham Mennonites devolved. 1905 Bishop L. J. Heatwole Of Rockingham County wrote of his fellow Mennonites: ". . . all our peOple trace their lineage back tO the congregations previously established in Pennsylvania," adding they could claim descent from the original immigrants.2) Understanding of the present settlement in Rockingham County requires some knowledge Of the s e antecedents . The earliest known record Of Mennonites in North Amelticza is a letter, dated 1643, noting a number Of Dutch "Menists” in New Netherlands (i.e., New York). This group did not thrive. Permanent Mennonite occupation Of New World lands had to wait another century-and-a-half, and was coincident with the heavy immigration of Rhine- landear-s. The first viable Mennonite population arrived in Philadelphia sometime around the turn Of the eighteenth eel‘Iltiry. Germantown, six miles to the west, served as the in ~ a“tial focus of development. At least one Mennonite is \ Mg 2Lewis J. Heatwole, "The Virginia Conference,” in I{fit‘honite Church History, ed. by J. S. Hartzler and Daniel SQ finan (Scottdale, Pa.: Mennonite Book and Tract QIlety, 1905), pp. 203-4. 3C. Henry Smith, The Mennonite Immigration to 9% . Wylvania in the Eighteenth Century (Norristown, Pa.: Norristown Press, 1929), p. 26. known t: number I Mennoni' folk we. Old Wor course, 1785 an . 6 vania. twenty- some mi (Fig, 3 initial an add Onl "E Y. COu“tr. my 0th \ % (SOshe Celeni % 50 known to have lived there as early as 1683. By 1708 the number had risen to 45 and become the first permanent Mennonite settlement in Arnerica. While some Of these folk were displaced Palatines, the major influx from this Old World locale began in 1709-10. This immigration, of course, was part Of a far broader population movement. By 1785 an estimated 100,000 Germans had settled in Pennsyl- vania. . 6 NO more than 5 percent Of these were Mennonites. The Mennonite immigrants Of 1709-10 forsook the twenty—five years Old Germantown settlement and passed some miles to the west to what is now Lancaster County (Fig - 3). There they acquired a 6,400 acre tract in the initial year.7 In 1717 their agents acquired a patent on an additional 5,000 acres "tO be sold to Mennonites only- "8 Thus began the Mennonite stronghold in Lancaster C cunt-y, which to this day contains more Mennonites than a 11y other county in the United States. Population figures \ 4Harold S. Bender, "The Founding of the Mennonite C: qurch in America at Germantown, 1683-1708," Mennonite Werly Review, VII (October, 1933), 250. 51bid., p. 229. ( Q 6C. Henry Smith, The Mennonites Of America (3:3hen, Ind.: By the Author, 1909), p.*134. QQl 7Ira D. Landis, "Mennonite Agriculture in Q“ Onial Lancaster County, Pennsylvania," Mennonite a.Jz‘terly Review, XIX (October, 1945), 259. 8Ibid. gu‘I-Ll (In! LLLLLLL . - 20~F:<022m§< \ 51 On No $59.38 22m Emmwual.l £68 Ewegzow . OTmot uco n00. muoram zoru . .. .081. .. .... . vU a......u . . . .5 . .. s «3%.. 93.1, a . . .. .......H,.... .. . .1” ............. .hu...... 5 <> H vag®lkn ”using $m WC. n\ .w - .. Lv‘ \.\ p . H \ $88.78.: ensues—Cow m ousmflm d P 062 a" ‘g I "5%“? J "E 3‘3.“ as a“ ‘ I? has. meter-14 fit.fl.\”4....°o¢...u........\.e........,., .stnms...’ A M? y can H k. e we!” C \ . tea-Batons; \. . coats . O 8memm. .2. is $4.23 148353 ....... m1» 9 muomsm somu assess assess , ....,..............u t . x m 1: <> I QOOZ qzimfirhm \ UIF 0L. WQOQDW 30th ZO‘FQKOIE IHkaZOZZWE 51 00m. I mmw. (495.5 4:..39‘5. .mk E _ “. H r, seam ... _. . ’ m whamwm .991. 8:858 22w 239qu .I 262 EoEoEom . mm . mu . ... . . . . .. . ..... J - at hesapeo -d, ' C orm0k_ucommo_ muomam zomu. .teeoasnoo: may» . L.» . chat—9530 .. . . . : reformers... s‘s-w .\..t.\ c.2383 . \ . .r. . I >m44<> Iles. Most numerous were English, Irish, Scotch-Irish 3.1-1 Q German groups (the latter mostly of the Lutheran \ [‘11 9Christian Herr, "The Mennonites," in An Original Wry Of the Religious Denominations at Present Existing NKe United States, by Israel D. Rupp (Philadelphia, 18‘ = J. Y. Humphreys; Harrisburg: Clyde and Williams, 44), p. 488. ‘E 10James T. Lemon, The Best Poor Man's Country altimore: The Johns HOpkins Press, 1972) , p. 43. faith). the “Amer nites we: between 1 accultur. result w. an overt ment of . group be hold has Cultural (in acco Stantial inCreaSe PresenCe gradual IEnglish manners, 53 faith) . If the general process implicit in the concept Of ‘the ”.Punerican Melting Pot” was then beginning, the Menno- nites were loathe to participate. The ideological duality between the church and world was easily extended to counter acetil.t:uration with the emerging American identity.11 The reStiJ.t: was increasing exclusiveness. This process became an overt strategy with implementation involving establish- ment. of a large rural stronghold, maximization Of within- ngHJED koonds, and minimization Of external influence. Reference to the incipient rural Lancaster strong- hold has already been made. Application Of superior agri- cultural technology coupled with modest living and thrift (1" Eiccord with the ideal Of Sim licity) resulted in sub- P stant ial monetary surpluses. These monies were used to i . . Herease the extent Of Mennonite holdings. Thus, the preserice of non-Mennonites in rural Lancaster County 91: . . . Eici\lally waned. Although Benjamin Franklin claimed the En . EgzLJLsh left certain areas because Of Offensive German man r1tars, the demise Of the British in rural Lancaster was E>J=Wc>k3 . . . iably more the result of Mennonite prOpenSity to outbid th Eilr‘ for available farm land.12 It might be added that the eighteenth century 51%“ ‘\““:::pnites generally avoided city life. Because Of their 11Paul Peachy, "Identity Crisis Among American Me lgxghonites,” Mennonite Quarterly Review, XLII (October, 8) , 252. 12Lemon, The Best Poor Man's Country, p. 43. 1 European rural, a one woul Former p centers tnat the rural se Mennonit SErved 1 'Flhding the fdl1 inCIEase 0f the ‘ eluded, an urbax stIOthr baptism fUl' "Cl and Men: \ ThemSell 1947), 54 European farm background and religious legitimization of agrarian life "it was taken for granted that every— farm or work for another farmer."13 rural , one would either Former persecution and harassment in European urban centers also helped mold this attitude, as did the feeling that their particular ideals could best be maintained in a rural setting. The experiences of the few Pennsylvania Mennonites who left the farm for the cities and towns only served to reinforce the growing anti-urban sentiment. ”Finding no church of their own [in the cities], all left the faith of their fathers, an act no doubt which greatly increased the conviction that the people of the cities were of the world."14 The original Germantown settlement ex- cluded, there was not a single Mennonite congregation in an uthan area until well into the nineteenth century. Other actions besides establishment of the rural strol'lghold served to ensure separation. Perceiving Ana- baptism as the true Christian faith and outsiders as sin- ful . . 0 "contact with the surrounding world was not encouraged in d Mennonites communicated as seldom as possible with \ biz-1Q 13John C. Wenger, "The Mennonites Establish L9 Igselves in Pennsylvania,“ Mennonite Life, II (July, ), 28. 14Smith, The Mennonite Immigration, p. 377. lsIbid., p. 411. ‘ . I; [non-Ana quency < upon Si! though Outside Luthera 0f Gem the Me; Exampl. by ext COUIag llThere says a Mennon 55 [non-Anabaptists] of southeastern Pennsylvania."l6 Fre— quency of contact with other Anabaptists largely depended upon similarity of tenets. Accordingly, some interaction, though limited, transpired with Amish and Dunkard groups.17 Outside the Anabaptist stream, the main contacts were with Lutheran and Reformed folk, who, like the Mennonites, were of German Rhineland background.18 But for the most part the Mennonites appear to have kept to themselves. For example, there is no evidence of proselytizing. Prohibited by external authority in EurOpe, the practice was dis- couraged from within in Pennsylvania. Wenger states, “There was no thought of evangelistic work," while Smith says a few people converted from other churches though the Mennonites "were not a proselytizing people."19 The effect of the above-described interaction pattern, of course, was to minimize . . . dependence upon the surrounding world and to intensify the conservatism of the Mennonite community. 16Lee Charles HOpple, ”Spatial Development and Internal Spatial Organization of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Plain Dutch Community" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, The Pennsylvania State University, 1971), p. 121. l7Ibid. 18Wenger, "The Mennonites Establish Themselves in Pennsylvania," p. 28. 19Ibid., p. 28; and Smith, The Mennonites of America, p. I91. 20Hopple, "Spatial Development," p. 122. 56 Two other possible means of outside influence, higher education and political involvement, were also generally avoided. These, too, constitute Opportunities which were negated by external authority in Europe, and from within in Pennsylvania. The Palatine Mennonites of Europe, being a plain farmer folk at the time of the immigration, had little interest in higher education. There were no univer- sity graduates among them; even their ministers having no more schooling than the average small farmer of the day . . . and in Switzerland and south Germany at least its membership for several centuries was confined almost entirely to the realm of the common folk. The Pennsylvania immigrants, retaining all the traditions of their European forefathers against an educated . . . ministry, had no interest here in higher education for either ministry or laity. They were favorable, however, toward elementary schooling, and from the start elementary schools were provided for the purpose of instructing their children in the elements of the traditional 'Three R's' to which was added a fourth, Religion. The state of Pennsylvania had no public school system during the eighteenth century; and so the matter of education was left entirely with each community or local church.21 Thus the education of Mennonite youngsters was in the hands of Mennonite elders. Learning in areas other than essential skills was avoided. With regard to politics, the early Pennsylvania Mennonite Conference prohibited members from seeking political offices. With the exception of the Germantown group, ”the early Mennonites never held office, nor par- ticipated in political affairs even when they were in the 21Smith, The Mennonite Immigration, pp. 400-401. majorj tnat 1 the el attic thEy candi t P t r a Hence tunit 57 majority."22 Apparently it was only around mid—century that they ever began to exercise their right to vote. In the election campaign of 1755 they even became somewhat articulate in opposition to the Governor's Party, which they perceived as militaristic. But when the Quaker candidates they supported were defeated, the Mennonites rationalized that participation in political matters was wrong, and perhaps admitting that the defeat . . . was a judgement of God, they returned to their former aloofness from political affairs.23 Hence, in politics as well as in education, the oppor- tunities for external influence were generally curtailed. A final though extremely important factor which encouraged exclusiveness was language. Though immigrating from scattered Rhineland locales, High German was the uni- versal language of the original Lancaster Mennonites. Un- diluted in the early American years, several alterations gradually occurred (addition of English terms, grammatical changes), resulting in a new dialect, "Pennsylvania Dutch." ”Dutch” in this case is from Deutsch (German) and not the language of Holland. Once formulated, ”Pennsylvania Dutch” became something more than a common language for 22C. Henry Smith, The Story of the Mennonites (3rd ed.; revised and enlarged by Cornélius Krahn; Newton, Kansas: Mennonite Publishing Office, 1950), p. 749. 23Glen Weaver, "The Mennonites During the French and Indian War," Mennonite Historical Bulletin, XVI (April, 1955), 2. ’1 the Me perpet not on tool t Mennor insig} abstr Lanca quire Penns Stand carri 099 h Style Was t Orgar villa 58 the Mennonites. It ”served as an essential vehicle to perpetuate old values and patterns, and became in itself not only an index of cultural survival but also a cherished tool to be preserved."24 These factors, which served to buffer the Lancaster Mennonites from the outside world, also provide cultural insight. But the cultural elements they represent are abstract in nature and lend no visual impressions of the Lancaster stronghold. Account of tangible traits is re- quired not only to complete the picture of the southeastern Pennsylvania culture area, but also round out an under- standing of the "cultural baggage” that was eventually carried southward to Virginia. Four characteristics which beg brief consideration are settlement, farming, dress styles and church architecture. The apparent intent of the first Mennonite pioneers was to purchase large jointly owned tracts of land and organize them after the model of the European agricultural village.25 However, since no large tracts of land were available in southeastern Pennsylvania in the eighteenth century [aside from the original grants], the members of each group of immigrants decided to procure small privately-owned tracts in as close proximity to each 24Walter M. Kollmorgen, ”The Agricultural Stability of the Old Order Amish and Old Order Mennonites of ILancaster County, Pennsylvania," American Journal of Sociology, XLIX (1943), 235. 25Hopple, "Spatial Development," p. 118. 59 other as possible. Thus, over the decades, the territorial organization of the southeastern Pennsylvania Mennonite community . . . developed into a pattern of many diSpersed farm clusters.26 Invariably situated on the best available soil, it was through the auspices of these individually owned farms that the forested wilderness was transformed into a veri- table garden spot. In 1738 the Governor of Pennsylvania wrote of rural Lancaster, This province has been for some years the asylum of distressed Protestants of the Palatinate and other parts of Germany, and I believe it may truth- fully be said that the present flourishing condition of it is in a great measure owing to the industry of this people.27 In 1744 another observer noted, "There is no agriculture in the United States like that of the Germans of Pennsyl- vania, there is none superior."28 Farmsteads were accentuated by expansive facilities, most notably the fore-bay (or "Switzer") barns, which have a chalet-like appearance. Immaculately kept gardens were found adjacent to the house. Primarily serving to produce truck crOps, the gardens were always festooned with flowers and formed ”the one bright touch of poetry in the .29 otherwise hard routine of farm-life. Central to this 261bid. 27Landis, "Mennonite Agriculture," p. 261. 281bid., p. 260. 29Oscar Kuhns, The German and Swiss Settlements of Colonial Pennsylvania: A Study of the So-Called Pennsyl- vania Dutch (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1901), p. 100. routi fallo manta it is wheat other never by ac of se with tinet Pract. 60 routine was intensive agriculture. Crop rotation without fallowing and preservation of barnyard manures were funda- 30 mental from the start. High returns were the goal, and it is reported that the Mennonites sowed more acres of wheat and possessed more livestock on the average than other denominational groups.31 Specialized agriculture never caught on. General farming was the rule. Whether by accident or design, this served to produce a high degree of self-sufficiency which further curtailed interaction with non-Mennonites.32 The people themselves lent further visual dis- tinctiveness to their home area by their clothing. This practice too had historical roots in EurOpe. Centuries of persecution of their Anabaptist fore- fathers had convinced the Mennonites that an un- friendly society around them had different standards from their own . . . To be the salt of the earth required the maintenance of strict standards and high ideals in all areas of life, including the clothes they wore. The people of God were to be a separate people that could be distinguished from those conforming their lives to the standards of secularism. They therefore believed a Christian should look different from the non-Christian.33 30Landis, "Mennonite Agriculture," p. 271. 31Lemon, The Best Poor Man's Country, p. 261. 32For a more complete agricultural picture, see Kuhns, The German and Swiss Settlements, pp. 83-114. 33Melvin Gingerich, Mennonite Attire Through Four Centuries (Breinigsville, Pa.: The Pennsylvania German Society, 1970), p. 148. 61 In pursuit of this goal, the early Pennsylvania male, when dressed in his best, wore a black hat, . . . a neckcloth, a plain-collared frock coat and knee- breeches. He probably differed from the non- Mennonite of that era mainly in eliminating such items as lace collars and in rejecting new styles like outside coat-pockets. He was certainly plainly dressed and non-conformed. Characteristic feminine attire is more difficult to clarify. An anonymous source (1710) noted their dress was "quite plain, and of coarse material, after an old fashion of their own."35 Full-length dresses and cloaks were standard. A bonnet was also worn. Whatever the specifics, the dress of both men and women was sufficient to render a distinctive appearance. In 1727 the Governor of Pennsyl- vania received a delegation of Mennonites who, he noted, were ”peculiar in their dress.”36 Finally, there is the matter of church archi- tecture. Unlike the foregoing tangible and intangible aspects of Mennonite culture, there was no Old World model to provide guidance in the New. The reason, once again, was the mandate of external authority. Their European 34John C. Wenger, ”The History of Non-Conformity in the Mennonite Church," Proceedings of the Third Annual Sgnference on Mennonite Cultural Problems (North Newton, Kansas: Bethel College Press, 1944), p. 49. 35Quoted in Martin G. Weaver, Mennonites of the ‘Lgpcaster Conference (Scottdale, Pa.: The Mennonite Publishing House,’I931), p. 10. 36Quoted in Ira D. Landis, "The Plain Dutch," ‘Mennonite Research Journal, Ix (April, 1968), 19. 62 forefathers had been forbidden to have houses for worship. Services were therefore conducted in private homes. This practice was initially continued in Pennsylvania. But with the absence of church-building restrictions in the new setting, houses for worship soon appeared. Nissley, in a critique of church architecture, notes there are two extremes in this area. ”One is ornate, superficial and sensuous and the other is barren, cold and uninviting."37 Mennonite churches have traditionally followed the second 38 The style extreme ”in an effort to be plain and simple." that evolved was not distinctively Mennonite in origin but rather seems to have been closely patterned after the Quaker meetinghouse.39 This consists of a one-storied wooden structure with a rectangular floor-plan. Roof design is a simple inverted V minus steeple or other ob- viously religious ornamentation. Eaves are short and gables plain. Windows consist of plain (rather than tinted) glass. The main entrance is through one of the gabled walls. At first there was a single door. But following implementation of segregation by sex during 37Lowell Nissley, ”What Kind of Architecture for ‘Mennonite Churches?,” The Mennonite Community, IV (January, 1950), 8. 381bid. 39Cornelius Krahn, ”Mennonite Church Architecture," .Mennonite Life, XII (January, 1957), 19. Lanc vahi the ings were tura. 0f Sc buiL way land and . Mehn¢ isti, SOcL and 0FPO Pros lang. mart: View 63 the church service a two door design (one for men, one for women) became standard.40 Mennonite Culture in Early Pennsylvania: A Summary By 1750 a Mennonite culture area had developed in Lancaster and adjacent counties of southeastern Pennsyl- vania. Farm life, the church-dictated ideal, as well as the principle of separation, resulted in contiguous hold- ings that put large areas solely in Mennonite hands. Few were the faithful who lived in towns. Intensive agricul- tural practices placed their mode of land use in the realm of science. Yet given the visual impress of imposing farm buildings, immaculate gardens and well-used acreage, their way of life also lent a certain artistic quality to the landscape that was distinctively Mennonite. Peculiar dress and church architecture also served to differentiate Mennonite from non—Mennonite areas. Intangible character- istics not only completed the cultural fabric of Mennonite society but also served to guard it from external influence and change. Economic self-sufficiency, limited educational opportunities and stringent control thereof, lack of proselytizing and involvement in politics, separate language, limited contact with outsiders, within-group marriage--all served to accentuate Mennonite uniqueness. 40Note the photograph of the present-day Pleasant View Old Order Church, Figure 24, page 161. And a henno waves south the e impos Mehn< dile: farm: when. on i in f Ohio hood Cone they Cohe long Lanc 64 And all these factors had the sanction of religion, the Mennonites' most pervasive and important cultural element. Out-migration from Pennsylvania Due to pOpulation pressure engendered by successive waves of immigrants and natural increase, the best lands in southeastern Pennsylvania were taken up by the middle of the eighteenth century. Thereafter it became "almost impossible to buy a farm.”41 Up to mid-century the Mennonites were fairly successful in c0ping with this new dilemma. To keep peOple on the land, subdivision of farms occurred and non-Mennonite neighbors were bought out whenever possible. Though they were not Opposed to moving on in stride with the ever-advancing frontier (and were in fact among the earliest settlers in certain sections of Ohio and Indiana, as well as Virginia) the ties of brother- hood were often a strong deterrent. ”Apparently they were concerned with intensifying their community life in areas they had already occupied in order to maintain their cohesion."42 But these practices could not and did not long continue. As a result of competition for the land on the Lancaster Plain, prices rose from about 10 shillings per 41Hopple, ”Spatial Development," p. 132. 42Lemon, The Best Poor Man's Country, p. 81. acre 1760 tion prov fina were fore obta reme divi tEhd gene take bil: 3011 P60} As 1 and Men; (F1 65 acre in the 1730's to double that amount in the 1740's. By 1760 values had redoubled.43 Thus by mid-century acquisi- tion of a farm could require considerable capital. This proved a severe burden for young families; and even if financial assistance from relatives were forthcoming, there were few if any farms up for sale in a given year. There- fore, subdivision or inheritance were important means of obtaining a farm. But subdivision was only a temporary remedy. Thresholds were soon reached beyond which further division was uneconomical. Concomitantly, family sizes tended to be rather large with each household typically generating two or more sons who would eventually desire to take to the farming way of life. Thus the added possi- bility of inheritance likewise did not provide a lasting solution. The situation dictated that a certain number of peOple either emigrate or take up non-farming occupations. As the latter alternative ran counter to both tradition and church mandate, out-migration was the only recourse. The Beginnings_of Mennonite Settlement in the Shenandoah Valley One of the first areas to receive Pennsylvania Mennonite emigrants was the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia (Fig. 3, page 51). Bordered by the Blue Ridge to the east 431618., pp. 87-88. and t local in cc Ridge hunt: had 1 CERU Spec: occu] nati‘ hite was 1 eXPEJ Valh Mere Figu SYSt Vidi 66 and the Appalachians to the west, this fertile, picturesque locale was unsettled in the mid 1720's. White settlement in colonial Virginia did not then extend west of the Blue Ridge. Indians (mainly Catawba) used the valley as a hunting reserve, but had no permanent settlements there and had not effectively occupied the area for at least a century.44 Brunk states that the Shenandoah Valley ”had a special attraction” to Mennonite settlers (who began their occupance in the late 1720's) because it was ”like their native Switzerland."45 As the prime rationale for Menno- nite settlement, this notion is questionable. The land was excellent for farming, unoccupied and relatively in- expensive to obtain. (In the 1740's land prices in the 46) Valley were one-third those in southeastern Pennsylvania. Moreover, there was a clear tOpographic factor. As Figure 3 suggests, the combined Great-Shenandoah Valley system represented something of a natural corridor pro- viding an outlet for pOpulation pressure in southeastern 44Robert D. Mitchell, ”The Shenandoah Valley Frontier," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, LXII (September, 1972), 466. 45Harry A. Brunk, History of Mennonites in Virginia, 1727-1900 (Staunton, Va.: McClure Printing Company, 1959), p. 10. 46Mitchell, "The Shenandoah Valley Frontier," p. 467. Penney there the V press was h an 85 the u 'cont grou; rGSiC a dij (We: was 1 a pus 67 Pennsylvania. Finally, and of over-riding importance, there was the action of the Virginia authorities in Opening the Valley for settlement at the time when population pressure in Pennsylvania was becoming acute. Such action was hardly altruistic. Anglicanism enjoyed the status Of an established state church east of the Blue Ridge, and the Virginia authorities had no desire to see their colony "contaminated“ by the presence Of other denominational groups. Non-Anglicans were accordingly dissuaded from residing there. But the unoccupied Shenandoah Valley was a different matter. Indeed, a major reason for allowing (even encouraging) non-Anglicans to settle in the Valley was to create a buffer zone between the colony prOper and a putative Indian menace to the west. The original focus of Mennonite settlement in the Valley was near the present-day town of Luray in Page County (Fig. 3). Various dates from 1727 through 1729 have been given to mark the origin of this dispersed farming community. The pOpulace was of mixed EurOpean and denominational background with Mennonites forming the largest contingent Of Rhinelanders. Thirty-nine Mennonite families reportedly lived there in the mid 1750's, though nothing of a significant nature has been recorded about 47 their everyday life. In any event the settlement did not endure for long. 47H. Frank Eshleman, Historic Background and Annals of the Swiss and German PiOneer Settlers of 68 Two factors resulted in the demise of this colo— nization effort. First there was a series Of bloody Indian raids in the period 1758-64 which forced a temporary return to Pennsylvania. Second, and more importantly, a serious question Of land ownership arose. Whatever the reason, it appears that the Luray settlers had not acquired proper title to their lands, which were eventually awarded to Lord Fairfax as part of his mammoth “Northern Neck" claim. Thus, our pioneer Mennonites suddenly found themselves occupying the unwelcome and uncertain position of squatters upon an English lord's estate, and at once had to face the issues of choosing between paying an annual rental for the use of the lands they occupied or abandoning them altogether.48 The latter course was chosen. By the 1770‘s relocation had occurred in the northern part of Rockingham County, especially along Linville Creek and adjacent stretches of the North Fork Of the Shenandoah River. In 1780 Harrisonburg, a few miles to the southwest, was designated the county seat. Promising superior marketing opportunities, the town immediately fostered a second Mennonite focus in its Southeastern Penns 1vaniay_and of Their Remote Ancestors, from the Middle of the Dark Ages, Down to the Time of the Revolutionary War (Lancaster, Pa.: 1917), p. 325. 48Heatwole, "The Virginia Conference," p. 200. 69 unsettled environs. Bishop Heatwole described this Mennonite occupance in the following terms. With an eye to locating to better advantage, and being very naturally attracted by the large and unoccupied sections lying immediately south and west of Harrisonburg, they are said to have made frequent tours of inSpection on horseback . . . and in riding Over these densely wooded areas the rule was that whenever the horse's hoofs ceased to clatter against the stones and resounded only from a firm and generous soil, they made a halt, when one or more Of the party sought out the owner of the land with the view of making a purchase.49 Thus by 1800 Mennonite settlement in Rockingham County exhibited two centers: the Linville/Shenandoah borderlands and the area immediately south and west of Harrisonburg (Fig. 4). These clusters eventually became administrative areas of the Virginia Mennonite Conference, respectively labeled the Northern and Middle District. Mennonite Life in Rockingham County to 1900 Quite unsurprisingly, the nineteenth century Rockingham Mennonites displayed most Of the cultural characteristics Of their Pennsylvania forefathers. Ideal- ization of agrarian life, coupled with the anti-urban sentiment, again led to the near-total ruralization Of the membership. Maps compiled by Brunk for the period 1865-1900 reveal that three Mennonite families were then 49A Mennonite [Lewis J. Heatwole], "The Mennonitesf' chkingham Register (Harrisonburg, Va.: Friday, July 26, 1895), p. l. 70 MENNONITE SETTLEMENT IBOO Approximate settlement area ROCKTrGEFmM co. .;.y.-:-;;:;.;;;:-f- ;:c:;:;:;_. r ‘1 .... "§g§5§;§;;g;;. L) Harrisonburg ...... ....... ...... ........ .......... ............ ....... ......... ......... ........... ................ ...... ....... ....... .......... .......... ...... .......... ..... ..................................... ......................................................... ...................................................... ....... ...... ...... ..... ........................... ....................... .................... ................ ........... ...... .............................................. ............................................... .............................................. ...................... L Figure 4 71 50 Between the same dates the Mennonite found in towns. population in Rockingham County rose from about 250 to 1,000 persons.51 Hence, only an extremely small percen- tage of the total population resided in towns. Church locations also suggest the same conclusion. At no time in the nineteenth century was such an edifice located in a city or town. The prime economic venture was farming, with the characteristics previously Offered for the Pennsylvania setting again appearing in Virginia. It is probably not coincidental that Rockingham became one of Virginia's leading agricultural counties or that, by the end Of the century, the part of Rockingham County having the highest real estate values also possessed a majority of Mennonite farmers.52 soBrunk, History . . . 1727—1900, pp. 249 and 302. 51Heatwole, ”The Virginia Conference," p. 219. On the same page Heatwole suggests that the Mennonite pOpula- tion was 350 prior to the Civil War. The sudden drop, suggested by the 1865 figure, seems mainly the result of out-migration of males to escape conscription. Their return after hostilities, coupled with large family sizes, resulted in sharp increases leading to the 1900 pOpulation figure. 52John W. Wayland, A Histor of Rockingham County, Virginia (Dayton, Va.: RueBusH-EIEins Company, 1912; reprinted, Harrisonburg, Va.: C. J. Carrier Company, 1972)! Po 177. 72 But despite the propensity for rural life and farming, a rural stronghold on a par with the Lancaster model never quite materialized. There were several reasons for this. The original occupants, in contrast to the Pennsylvania immigrants, were unable to acquire tracts running into the thousands of acres which could be divided up solely among group members. Moreover, their numbers were relatively small, the Rockingham Mennonite population in 1900 being less than the Pennsylvania pOpulation in 1750. At the same time the Mennonites were a small minor- ity of the total populace which sought to occupy Rockingham County farm lands in the nineteenth century. As a net result, an extensive area occupied entirely (or almost entirely) by Mennonites never materialized. Yet by inheri- tance and subdivision, what lands they did possess tended to remain under Mennonite ownership. New lands were occupied when possible, with the desire to be located near fellow believers most always being evidenced by such pur- chases. Occasional exceptions tO these generalizations occurred in northern Rockingham where abandonment was followed by relocation near Harrisonburg. Nonetheless, the two original foci of settlement were generally main- tained as the century progressed. By 1900 Mennonite farm- steads were in the majority in a sixteen-square-mile block west of Harrisonburg and in a ten-square—mile area along Linville Creek. However, the sizable minority of 73 non-Mennonites who were also present makes questionable the labeling of these zones as Mennonite culture areas. This juxtaposition with peoples Of other faiths and EurOpean background, to a degree unknown in Lancaster County, began placing great strains on the maintenance of group standards. Court records, for instance, suggest that a substantial number of Mennonites were marrying outside the faith.53 As before, certain religion-based strategies were employed to counter the situation. Within- group bonds were stressed. This notion found fruition not only in close contacts among Rockingham's Mennonites, but also in pronounced social interaction with co-religionists in Pennsylvania and newly develOping Mennonite enclaves in the Middle West. At the same time (and the marriage sit- uation to the contrary) contact minimization with outsiders was idealized. This desire was operationalized in several ways. For example, proselytizing was shunned until very late in the century. Such aversion to missionary out- reach was in direct Opposition to the revival meetings which were commonplace to peOple of other denominations. The Mennonite leadership generally discouraged the laity 54 from attending such meetings. Political activities were 53Information courtesy of Miss Grace Showalter. 54Brunk, History . . . 1727-1900, pp. 194-95. 74 likewise generally avoided. In 1907 Wayland noted the Mennonites to that year had not sought any appreciable share in public or political life, partly because Of their avoidance of show and display, partly because of their religious convic- tions in regard to formal oaths, and partly because the holding of certain Offices might require them to violate their peace principles.55 Members were, however, allowed to vote as long as they did so “peaceably and quietly."56 Other characteristics which arose more specifically from the notion of nonconformity also tended to emphasize Mennonite distinctiveness. This principle was stressed on several Official occasions throughout the century. Pro- scriptions appear to have been most Often directed towards dress, divertissment and architecture. Prior to the Civil War specific facets of the dress question are not known. 'By inference, it would seem that a number in the church wore a self-prescribed 57 After the war, or perhaps church-prescribed garb.” however, the Virginia Conference certainly took a direc- tive stand on dress and personal appearance. At a con- ference in 1877 55John W. Wayland, The German_Element Of the Shegandoah Valle (1907; reprinted, Bridgewater, va.: 5: J. Carrier Company, 1964), p. 130. 56Brunk, History . . . 1727-1900, p. 191. 57Ibid., p. 107. 75 the wearing of finger rings, breastpins, ornamental shirt fronts, cuffs, fashionable collars, ruffles, roached or otherwise fashionable hair was considered inconsistent with the Word of God. In April, 1878, ”earrings and the wearing Of watch chains conspicu- ously” were added to the list. In 1884 the conference declared that . . . to be a separate people from the world . . . it was ”very inexpedient to be constantly changing our external appearance in the form Of apparel.'53 Guidance thus took a generally negative form, stressing proscribed articles. More positively, plainness was en- couraged with womens' bonnets and prayer coverings, and mens' broad-rimmed hats perhaps being the major distin- guishing types Of apparel. Proscriptions were also aimed at common amusements. Questionable activities included shows, picnics, church festivals, lawn parties, debating societies, croquet and 'ten-pin-alley rolling.” Officially discouraged because they were 'worldlike,“ the forbidden activities also had the desired end Of limiting outside contacts.59 Residential injunctions stressed the ideal of simplicity. Members were to guard against ”superfluous ornamentation of houses or other buildings, either in the manner Of building or in decorating the walls and tables 60 with pictures.“ But there was no prescribed architectural 581618., pp. 192-93. 591618., p. 194. 601bid., p. 193. 76 model. For churches, however, there was precedent--the form adopted earlier in Pennsylvania. Old photographs published by Brunk suggest that nearly all Mennonite churches in nineteenth century Rockingham County followed the previously described model.61 The use of a single versus dual entrance provided the only occasional deviation. But calculated application of religious principles to the contrary, it proved increasingly difficult to pro- hibit change. One reason, again, is found in the juxta- position with elements Of mainstream American culture occasioned by the lack of an extensive and exclusive Mennonite area. Additionally, a century's existence in a peaceful environment, free from hostile actions of govern- ment or sister denominations, seems to have fostered a generally less suspicious or paranoic attitude toward the ways of the non-Mennonite world. Whatever the prime rationale, changes began to occur. Language is a prime example. Like other settlers Of German background, an ”early period Of exclusive use Of the German [or ”Dutch”] language was followed by several decades Of bilingualism in public and church affairs.“62 61See Harry A. Brunk, Histor of Mennonites in Virglnia, 1900-1960 (Verona, Va.: McClure Printing EOmpany, 1972), pp. 35, 39, 42, 44, 121 and 129. 62John Stewart and Elmer L. Smith, "The Survival of German Dialects and Customs in the Shenandoah Valley,” Society for the History of the Germans in Maryland, Report 31 (1963). p. 67. 77 English came more and more into use. This slow but sure process, in which the English language superseded the German, was vigorously opposed by many well-meaning members, some venturing even the sad and solemn prediction that when the German language would once be gone, the Mennonite faith would also be gone.53 To counter the trend, next to each church a school house was built where children could be taught the German language. But the tide could not be stemmed. With the ordination of David Showalter, in about 1840, came the first exclusively English speaking minister, and with the death of John Weaver and Daniel Showalter in 1877-80, the last German discourses were heard by a Virginia congregation from a Virginia minister.64 By the end of the century exclusive use of English was wide-spread. In 1912 Wayland noted that a few peOple in Rockingham can still speak traditional German--a dialect of the ”Pennsylvania Dutch;' but the number is becoming smaller every year. German has not been much used for the past fifty yeags, except in the home talk Of certain families. 5 Change was also evidenced in the area Of educa- tion. Compulsory schooling was not instituted in Rocking- ham County until 1911 and it was not until 1917 that the county's first Mennonite parochial school appeared. Throughout the nineteenth century the education of most Mennonite youth was quite elementary with instruction often 63Heatwole, “The Virginia Conference," p. 203. 64Ibid. 65Wayland, History_of Rockingham County, p. 240. 78 taking place exclusively in the home. But in a society where the values of education were increasingly stressed, the traditional Mennonite attitude towards learning proved ever more difficult to maintain and justify. That times were changing is evidenced by no less a personage than the Middle District Bishop, L. J. Heatwole (1852-1932), who gained repute as a teacher, author and astronomer. From mid-century onward a number of Mennonites even opted for higher education. The majority who chose this course appear to have eventually left the church. The general thirst for learning was such that compromise was necessary to stave Off defection to other denominations. An example is provided by the ”Sunday School Issue.“ Offered by many other local denominations at mid-century, the first such Mennonite school was begun in the spring of 1870. It lasted only a few years with its demise resulting from the Objection of many prominent members that the school was an unwarranted innovation. Denied this learning opportunity by their own church, many Mennonite youngsters regularly attended the Sunday schools Of other denominations. Due to the real or potential loss of membership that this situation represented, the Virginia Mennonite Conference renewed its Sunday school work in 1882.66 66Heatwole, "The Virginia Conference," p. 215. 79 The foregoing paragraphs suggest that the church found it increasingly difficult to hold its membership as the nineteenth century drew to a close. As a dramatic index of this condition, it is reported that while there were 1,000 Mennonites in Rockingham County at the turn Of the century, there were an additional 3,000 peOple of Mennonite origin there who were not affiliated with the church.67 The major reasons for membership loss seem to have been the aforementioned cultural juxtaposition plus a general inability of the church (by desire) to adapt itself to the changing world without seriously jeopardizing internal unity. Schism At the beginning of the present century the Virginia Mennonite Conference found itself in a serious dilemma. Faced with the reality of a changing socio- cultural climate and loss of membership to other churches, two Opposing viewpoints arose as to how the situation should be met. First there was a majority progressive point of view which held that if the church were to survive as a viable entity some manner Of controlled change was neces- sary. Rigid interpretation of traditional values, they felt, was tending to do the church more harm than good. 671bid., p. 219. 80 Concomitantly, they viewed the vitality of sister denomina- tions as the result of such policies as a benevolent atti- tude towards education, lack of excessive restrictions on individual activities, and overt efforts to gain new members from the outside. That these policies were proving fruitful was painfully obvious by the number of ex- Mennonites attending other churches. Hence, the progres- sive faction felt that the future Of the church in Rockingham County rested in some measure on successful competition with other denominations. This, of course, meant that in some spheres of activity the Mennonite Church would have to become "more like" other churches. The re-introduction of the Sunday school was one action taken in this direction. Another unprecedented action was the beginning of local outreach work to bring converts to the Mennonite fold. These trends tended to arouse the Opposition of the second, minority, faction which espoused a conserva- tive course Of action towards church problems. This group stood for perpetuation Of the "old ways” while viewing the church's liberalizing tendencies as more threatening than the factors that had caused a loss of membership to other churches. Strategies which progressives viewed as healthy for the future of the church were seen by conservatives as unwarranted compromises of beloved principles. 81 The strain on church unity, so produced, proved especially corrosive in the Middle District. Certain actions taken therein by BishOp Heatwole only tended to exacerbate the situation. In 1900-1901 sixty-nine Middle District members withdrew from the Virginia Conference to form a separate church group.68 Thus began the Old Order Mennonite community in Rockingham County. It should be noted that the problems that resulted in this schism were not unique to Virginia. In fact the Rockingham division was the last of four Old Order schisms which occurred during the three decades ending in 1900-1901. Previous schisms occurred in Ohio and Indiana in 1872, Ontario in 1889, and Lancaster County in 1893. Each episode saw a minority conservative faction break away from the local main body of the church. These groups recognized each other as being one brotherhood, and became known as the Old Order Mennonites, although thgy had no formal organiza- tion bearing this name. Old Orders and Progressives to 1950 TO set the stage for the comparative analysis of the contemporary Old Order and progressive communities, the present discussion is concluded with a few salient 68For a more complete account Of the schism, see 69John C. Wenger, ”Old Order Mennonites,” The Mennonite Encyclopedia, Vol. IV (Scottdale, Pa.: The Mennonite P is ing House, 1959), p. 47. 82 comments on these respective factions in the earlier decades of this century. Figure 5 shows Old Order and progressive Mennonite homestead locations in 1900. For the Old Orders, the key point to be graSped is their total rurality and maximum clustering west Of Dayton. The distribution of progres- sives largely mimics the previously defined areas of original settlement, but unlike that of the Old Orders shows a few households located in urban centers. This divergence anticipates one of the major differences that would develOp as the new century progressed: rising urbanization of progressives versus continued ruralization of the Old Orders. The factors which, until the beginning of this century, contributed to general Mennonite ruralization need not be repeated. We should recall, however, that in 1900 a majority of Americans lived outside urban areas. Though gradual urbanization of progressives may be seen as part Of a broader societal trend, there were four addi- tional factors which help explain their movement to the towns. First, the language barrier had disappeared. If utilization Of "Pennsylvania Dutch” had once contributed to group exclusiveness, it also curtailed the Opportunity to engage in commercial and other non-agricultural work requiring intercourse with non-Mennonites. With the 83 ...... O u . ..... Tim bervil le ........ .......... .......... ----------- .......... .......... ......... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... oooooo I. s .a. RESIDENCES OF OLD ORDER AND PROGRESSIVE NENNONITES IDOO 0 Old Order Mennonite residence 0 Progressive Mennonite reddence. Lu 5 a e 9 \ LU .J .J 3‘ e e 3 Mi. Affer Brunk and Burma/o'er MAP AREA ROCKINGHAM CO. L 48906 Figure 5 84 advent of English speech this situation no longer Obtained. Second, with the progressives' liberalized attitude towards education, more Mennonite youngsters were completing high school and college work. The church itself provided Oppor- tunity in this matter by Opening Eastern Mennonite School in 1917. Located in Park View, now a suburb just north Of Harrisonburg, this institution has expanded over the years to become Eastern Mennonite College and adjacent Eastern Mennonite High School. If an explicit aim was to Offer Mennonite youth an alternative to other denominational or secular schools, which Often resulted in membership loss, it also prepared them for non-agricultural types Of work which implicitly suggested urbanization. Third, the prob- lem of population pressure and competition for scarce farm land was again acute. As large families were general, it had become virtually impossible for all young couples to seek sustenance from the earth. Finally, and most impor- tantly, there was a growing liberalization in the attitude of the church towards the city and non-agricultural em— ployment. NO doubt this change was related to the above factors, and perhaps also, as Wayland suggested, a desire to emulate the founders Of the Mennonite church, who were 70 not simple, rural folk. In any event, the progressive church was rescinding the traditional dictum that a rural, 7oWayland, The German Element, p. 156. 85 agrarian existence be the sole station in life for the true Christian. Unfortunately, there are no statistical data which give exact insight into the urbanization trend. However, extrapolating from the current situation, 30 percent urbanization by 1950 seems reasonable. Though a few prOgressive families lived in Dayton and Broadway, most urbanized folk lived in northern Harrisonburg (Park View) where Eastern Mennonite College was beginning to give rise to a Mennonite suburb. Old Order life exhibited opposing characteristics. Though they too were overwhelmingly Anglicized in speech, the attitude that Mennonite values and life could best be maintained in a rural setting continued to prevail. (When, around 1935, one Old Order fellow Opened a store in Dayton, he was informed by his bishop that one could not be a shOp- keeper and be a Mennonite.) As previously noted, this ideal was becoming somewhat difficult to uphold due to population pressure, large families, and general scarcity Of available farms. TO COpe with the situation, family and community financial resources were brought to bear to attempt to outbid the competition for farms and occasion- ally buy out non-Mennonite neighbors. The most prized farm land was that peripheral to Dayton, particularly to the north and northwest of that town. By 1950 these lands were largely under Old Order ownership. But these actions did not entirely solve the problem. Subdivision of farms 86 was occasionally necessary. When this was uneconomical, and farms simply unavailable, young men were encouraged to pursue farm-related occupations (such as carpentry, con- tracting or blacksmithing) while maintaining a rural residence. Education beyond the elementary grades, a major factor in the urbanization and job diversification of progressives, was shunned by the Old Orders. Menno- nites, according to the Old Orders, were to be farmers or craftsmen, and the needed skills were best learned in the home, not the school. The value of competency in reading, writing and arithmetic was clearly seen, but it was felt that elementary education would suffice. The high school years were also looked upon as a particularly delicate period when youth was most susceptible to the offerings of non-Old Order society. Accordingly, youngsters were en- couraged to leave school as soon as law permitted. Most thus received no more than eight years' education. Though this learning normally occurred under public auspices, in 1943 a parochial school was instituted.71 Differences between Old Orders and progressives were also evidenced in the areas of communication, dress and innovativeness. Divergence in communication was linked with changes in technology as well as interpretation of the traditional 71Pat Murphy, "Old Orders Run 3 Schools," Dail News-Record (Harrisonburg, Va.: Vol. 76, NO. 108, Fri ay, February 9, 1973), p. 2. 87 values of separation and nonconformity. Prior to the early years of this century the horse-and-buggy was the ubiquitous mode of transportation for all Mennonites. In 1902 the first automobile appeared in Harrisonburg and by 1912 the automotive pOpulation had risen to forty.72 The fact that a few progressives had bought autos by 1915 prompted an Official statement by the Virginia Mennonite Conference which endorsed their purchase, provided they were used for the glory of God and not display and pleasure- seeking.73 Though data on the automobile adOption rate are lacking, it has been suggested that a majority of progres- sives had taken to mechanized transport by the end of the 1920's.74 With the eventual advent of the auto, plus Conference endorsement of the use of airplane transport, progressive Mennonites, like Americans in general, were afforded new mobility potentials. Much the Opposite can again be said Of the Old Orders. To them the automobile stood as an explicit manifestation of worldliness and was condemned in accor- dance with the principle of nonconformity. NO doubt it was also seen as a challenge to the principle of separa- tion. In this regard condemnation of the auto also had 72Wayland, History of Rockingham County, p. 180. 738runk, History . . . 1900-1960, p. 431. 74Ibid., p. 222. 88 the desired effect of "keeping peOple close to home.” Further insight into such thinking is provided by the Old Orders' adOption Of the farm tractor, which occurred around 1935-40 (some 10-15 years after the progressives' adOption). When this change from horse to mechanical power occurred, members were Officially enjoined to attire tractors with bare steel wheels instead of rubber wheels. One Old Order explained this by saying, ”Rubber was just one more step towards the world."75 Without necessarily arguing this rationale, it should be noted that the running Of bare steel—wheeled vehicles on con- crete roads was unlawful. Hence, such vehicles could only be used on the farm and not for travel. This is not to suggest a scenario wherein Old Orders were never venturing beyond their acreage while progressives were constantly out sightseeing. Both groups exhibited macro-mobility with Old Orders (making long trips by bus or train) being only slightly more in- clined to limit destinations to other like-minded Menno- nite communities. But what the foregoing does, and should, infer is an expanded communication horizon for progressives versus a more traditional separationist picture for the Old Orders. Progressives were, in fact, becoming more and 75All persons interviewed by the author during the course of his field work were given assurance of anonymity. Therefore, several future quotations will not carry citations. 89 more acquainted with the non-Mennonite world. After some church difficulties on the matter, ownership of radios and television was condoned and became wideSpread. Of a more interpersonal nature, marriage outside the faith, though not encouraged, had at least become tolerated by the church. Old Orders, on the other hand, tended to limit non-Mennonite contacts, held marriage outside the faith as grounds for excommunication, and vigorously con- demned the radio and television. Unsurprisingly, as progressives' contacts with the outside world increased, their attire began to acquire non-traditional characteristics. In the early part of the century members were frequently admonished to dress plainly and modestly while eschewing neckties and jewelry. Dark clothing was recommended with men to wear the collar- 1ess ”plain coat" and women the bonnet. Any show of flesh, save hands, neck and head, was considered in poor taste when in social situations or at church. That dress none- theless gradually began mimicking the styles of the broader culture is evidenced by one Official's written concern (1958) ”relative to the trends of both men and women wearing short sleeves to services, ministers wearing trans- parent shirts, [and] young men wearing tight 'western 76 pants.'” The Old Orders, viewing such change with 76Brunk, History . . . 1900-1960, p. 28. 90 distaste, continued to insist on traditional rigid stan- dards. The Old Order man, when best attired, was to wear black shoes and socks, dark (deep gray or black) trousers and dresscoat, white shirt, black suspenders and dark broadrimmed hat. For the women, prescribed articles in- cluded black, heel-less shoes, dark full—length dress, and black bonnet. Modifications were permissible around the house and in time of warm weather. Old Orders and Progressives at Mid-Century: A Summation By the fiftieth anniversary of their schism, Old Order and progressive folk exhibited divergent traits. Seeking to maintain traditional principles, Old Order life was characterized by the total ruralization Of the member- ship. Clustering was evidenced around the town of Dayton, particularly to the north and northwest where a substantial area Of near-totally Old Order owned land existed. Agri- culture was the predominant as well as the prescribed occupation and occasioned pronounced subdivision of farm lands to allow the younger generations to conform to the agrarian requirement. Nonconformity with the ways Of mainstream American culture found expression in peculiar dress styles and mode of transportation, limited educa- tion, and limited contacts with the outside world. In summation, the criteria characterizing a traditional Mennonite culture area were being realized. 91 Such was not the case with the progressive faction. Though many had become urban dwellers and left agriculture in favor of other economic pursuits, a majority still lived in rural areas. But those living in these latter locales were gravitating towards suburban and rural housing developments. Whatever clustering was evidenced had a decidedly non-farmstead character. In general, the cul- ture of this group was more and more reflecting that of the broader society. This is not to say that the Virginia Conference Mennonites had become “less Mennonite” than their Old Order counterparts; for there was now divergent Opinion on the basic concept of Mennonitism with both viewpoints being equally valid for the respective groups of believers. A line had been clearly drawn between traditional and liberalized interpretation of centuries-Old tenets. As a result, one group was seeking to maintain a relatively static folk culture while the other was adapting itself to a modern, ever-changing society. CHAPTER IV IDEOLOGY AND CULTURE OF THE PRESENT OLD ORDER AND PROGRESSIVE MENNONITES IN ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA The present chapter centers upon two sets of hypo- theses dealing respectively with traditional Mennonite ideology and culture area characteristics as exhibited by the Old Order and prOgressive communities. Data for the testing of these hypotheses are derived from field mapping, photography, local (Rockingham County) agencies and, most importantly, interviews. While information garnered from the first three sources may "speak for themselves,” full account should be made of the interview procedure and sample design utilized by the author. Interview Procedure and Sample Design Practice interviews were conducted during three trips to Rockingham County prior to the period of inten- sive field work (summer 1973). During these trials the respondents exhibited greatest prOpensity to "Open up" when the interviewer, minus pad and pencil in hand, pre- sented himself for what appeared to be little more than an 92 93' informal discussion of local topics. As a result, the questionnaire prOper (see Appendix B) was limited in size to elicit only the most pertinent information. This was mainly done to facilitate its memorization by the inter- viewer and obviate the recording of responses while the interview was in progress. (The questionnaire was filled out by the author as soon as possible after completion of the interview.) To facilitate access to potential respondents, meetings were first arranged with key leaders of both the Old Order and Virginia Conference factions.1 These all resulted in promises of aid and, most importantly, the right to use the leader's name to establish credibility with potential interviewees. In the actual solicitation process, potential respondents were first contacted by telephone, given a rough idea of the project, and told that an endorsement had already been received by the apprOpriate church leader. An interview was then requested at a time and place convenient to the potential respondent. In the execution of the interview the author tried to ”guide the conversation" toward the desired information rather than issue questions in a point-blank manner. This normally produced the desired information while creating a relaxed, informal atmOSphere. It also allowed the 1The aid of Miss Grace Showalter is gratefully acknowledged. 94 respondent the Opportunity to digress into areas not anticipated by the interviewer. Normally such digressions led to interesting though extraneous talk; but occasionally they produced gems of insight that would never have been elicited had a rigid question-and-answer format been adhered to. A random stratified sample was utilized to gener- ate respondents. Drawing the sample, like formulation Of the interview process, was contingent upon certain pre- liminary work. The pOpulation from which the sample was to be drawn needed clear definition. NO difficulty was encountered with the Old Orders: the two congregations, reSpectively led by BishOps Paul Wenger and Justus Showalter, were chosen. Definition of the progressive pOpulation was not as simple. These people, as previously stated, are members of a particular affinity group, the Virginia Mennonite Conference. The Conference includes over forty congregations in Virginia, about two dozen of them in Rockingham County. Seven Virginia Conference con- gregations in Rockingham County were chosen to represent the progressive faction. Included are the Zion, Trissels, Lindale, Mt. Clinton, Weavers, Park View and Harrisonburg congregations (Fig. 6). These churches have the largest memberships and account for a substantial majority of the total progressive pOpulation in Rockingham County. Acquisition Of membership lists for the Old Order and progressive target congregations revealed a combined 95 \ / SAMPLED 1 CHURCHES Timberville I Old Order Mennonite fifiifi? dwmh nanmsmeMmmwm :: ChUI'Ch Broadway rmsssts 2.0,, s n V\\ 9 g 3 LINDALE ”‘ s 5 f; '1' _. 3 ‘»§ MAP AREA ;:§:;:;:§:'=&:§=:.;;. ROCKINGHAM Co. PA“ VIEW n a. ~ ..... urhctm'rou ”IQ; ass: i “E”"msu gas in ‘HARRISONBURG "-3 33 H fig ........... PLEASANT ylsw ______ Dayton ;;’:§:§:§: . - OAK GROVE aroma {a ;$, Figure 6 96 population of 739 household/family units. Fifty-one of these were eliminated from consideration either because: (a) the family unit was composed of an extremely elderly or otherwise physically indisposed person or persons; (b) the family unit was composed of a transient student or students attending Eastern Mennonite College; or (c) the family unit was temporarily residing outside the study area. This left a sampleable population of 688 family units (154 Old Order, 534 progressive). A 20 percent sample was decided upon, involving 138 households (31 Old Order, 107 progressive). Relative within—group homogeneity is suggested by the generic terms Old Order and progressive. However, it was soon realized that one could distinguish slight dif- ferences in conservatism or liberalism when comparing the congregations within each group. Obviously, a sampling procedure which failed to account for these differences would have produced bias. Thus it was reasoned that the sample not merely involve 20 percent of the Old Order and progressive households, but that it include 20 percent of the sampleable households of each congregation within each group. Since certain hypotheses deal with household location and the occupation of heads of households, a further degree of stratification was felt desirable. For each congregation the number of rural and urban residences 97 was determined; a 20 percent sample from each category was taken. Occupationally, for each congregation the various family units were placed in one of three broad categories, determined by the head of the household. These categories included Farmer, Non-farmer, and Widowed- retired. Again, a 20 percent sample from each category was taken. The sample did not directly consider the age of respondents even though this factor could be partially associated with liberal or conservative attitudes. The rationale for this deficiency was the added difficulty in sample selection that would have been produced by further stratification. It is noted, however, that some respect for the age factor is included in the occupational stratification. Neither was the sample stratified by sex, though this factor too could be partially associated with liberal or conservative attitudes. Since heads Of households were usually males, most interviews were conducted with males. (Six respondents, all progressives, were females.) More- over, the Old Orders especially would have deemed it somewhat inappropriate for the author to request an ex- tended conversation with ”the lady of the house.” To generate a list of potential respondents, the number of interviews needed for each congregation was determined with due consideration to the locational and 98 occupational stratifications. On each membership list household heads were numbered consecutively. A table of random numbers was then used to generate an appropriate sample for each congregation. Fortunately the number of refusals was small. When one was encountered, the table of random numbers was again called upon to find a suitable replacement. Summary statistics on the total population and sample thereof are given in Tables 1, 2 and 3. Figure 7 shows the locations Of the 688 sampleable Old Order and progressive residences, and Figure 8 the households sampled. Hypotheses Relative to Traditional Mennonite Ideology The first set of hypotheses deals with traditional Mennonite ideology. A general hypothesis is offered, and operationalized by a series of specific sub-hypotheses. 1. Old Order Mennonites exhibit a more conservative interpretation of traditional Mennonite ideology than progressive Mennonites. The first sub-hypothesis is realted to the agricultural ideal. 1a. As Opposed to progressive Mennonites, Old Orders place higher value on the agricultural walk of life. To obtain pertinent data, respondents were asked three questions: (a) ”Would you consider farming a test of membership?;" (b) Is it best for a Mennonite to be a 99 TABLE 1 HOUSEHOLDS AND SAMPLE BY CONGREGATION C°“9regati°ns Hoggzgilds giggifigié: Hgggghgids Old Orders: Showalter 81 78 16 Wenger 79 76 15 Totals 160 154 31 Progressives; Harrisonburg 150 136 27 Lindale 64 58 12 Mt. Clinton 34 31 6 Park View 91 85 17 Trissels 49 46 9 Weavers 141 130 26 Zion 50 48 10 Totals 579 534 107 TOTALS 739 688 138 100 TABLE 2 LOCATIONAL STRATIFICATION BY CONGREGATION Sampleable Sampled Households Households Congregations Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Old Orders: Showalter 0 78 78 0 16 16 Wenger 0 76 76 0 15 15 Totals 0 154 154 0 31 31 Progressives: Harrisonburg 70 66 136 14 13 27 Lindale 25 33 58 5 7 12 Mt. Clinton 5 26 31 l 5 6 Park View 76 9 85 15 2 17 Trissels 10 36 46 2 7 9 Weavers 44 86 130 9 17 26 Zion 28 20 48 6 4 10 Totals 258 276 534 52 55 107 TOTALS 258 430 688 52 86 138 101 mMH Hm as on mac coH mam moH mHaeos 50H oH ms MH «mm mm sun so uHouos oH N s H as oH em s coHN on m RH s oMH hm so oH uuo>oo3 o H o s me n - Hm mHouuHua 5H m «H o no mH on o 3oH> ruom o H v H Hm m oH s coucHHo .uz NH s a H mm mH on o oHoocHH cm H mm m GMH mH oOH NH musocouHuuor "mo>wmmoumoum Hm N o ma smH HH oH mNH uHouos mH H N «H oh 0 a mo uoocoz oH H a HH as a a mo uoHHozorm u MHQUHO 0H0 H6908 IWMMMWMM HOEHOMICOZ Hogan HmUOB IWMMWWMM HOEHMMIGOZ Hmfihmh mcowusmoumsoo acaosomoom oonEsm moaosomsom oHosoaoEdm ZOH9_mmwmoomn_ umwuzmmuummn. JSHZMQmwm whdkm 119 ma muomwm mnm. 52025 2.6 x893» ozcoccos. "outaom mozcoccoz co eoneaz come... ooo.o_ .. 000.8 .. mkflb >m ZO_._.fimmoumoum mo mosucmoumm Hanan maufism s waco use ouou ca ucmEmHuumu Hovuo UHO mnwumafism was» as noun mmcmom .mucsoo Esnmcfixoom mo nose ouauouomusso monounEusm nououusom was anmmumomou msaaaom aucsou Eunmsfixoom cumummz ”masompcmq «H mmDUHh 133 ea musmwm 134 TABLE 8 OCCUPATIONS OF HEADS OF SAMPLEABLE HOUSEHOLDS Old Orders Progressives Occupations Number Percentage Number Percentage Farming 125 81 67 13 Farm-relateda 6 4 31 ‘ 6 Construction tradesb 8 5 93 17 Church workC 0 0 40 7 Educationd o o 90 17 Other work 2 1 71 13 Widowed- retired 13 9 142 27 Totals 154 100 534 100 aEmployed in various farm supply companies. bCarpenters, brick layers, plumbers and electricians. cEmployed by one of the 7 progressive churches or an agency sponsored by the Virginia Mennonite Conference or other Mennonite body. dInstructors, administrators and supporting staff. 135 agricultural heritage. The interviewed tradesmen sug- gested that their jobs were an outgrowth of skills learned on the farm, offered farmer—like independence, and gen- erally allowed them to work “in the country." But even if the construction trades may somewhat dubiously be grouped with agricultural and related occupations, 37 percent of the progressive heads of households are still found in other lines of work. For Old Orders the comparative figure is 1 percent (denoting a harness maker and a buggy builder/repairman). Clearly, the agricultural ideal en- joys greater vitality among Old Orders than progressives. 2b. The distribution of Old Order homesteads is more clustered than that of progressive homesteads. It has been observed that Mennonite families have seldom lived in isolation from their fellows. Rather, the desire to perpetuate traditional values has tended to foster clustered enclaves of believers. Clustering is perhaps most indicative of the ideals of brotherhood and separation from the world. Surely, it suggests an oppor- tunity to maximize within-group bonds and minimize ex- ternal influence. As several ideological sub-hypotheses indicated that Old Orders place greater emphasis on these ideals, a correspondingly greater degree of residential clustering on their part should be expected. While a summary statistical measure, such as nearest neighbor analysis, may have proved useful, it was felt that 136 Figure 7 (page 102) would prove sufficient for the testing of this hypothesis. The reader is again referred to this map. Quite clearly, the residential distribution of both populations exhibits clustering. However, the progressive distribution is much more clustered than the Old Order one. While this finding negates the hypothesis it is nonetheless rational. We may recall that Broadway and Harrisonburg, as well as certain sectors of their respective environs, were the original foci of Mennonite settlement. We might thus expect some degree of his- torical inertia to be operative in these areas. This is indeed strongly evidenced in Figure 7. We should recall too that this century has manifested a pronounced shift by the progressives away from the traditional means of livelihood. Increased educational attainment and job diversification have produced movement from farmsteads to the city or suburban housing developments. The high degree of rural-urban migration is made obvious by the number of progressives now residing in Dayton, Broadway and Harrisonburg, especially the latter. The relatively massive concentration of progressives in northern Harrison- burg (Park View) attests to the impact of Eastern Mennonite College on present-day progressive settlement. Secondary concentrations west of Harrisonburg and southwest of Broadway indicate recent residential developments 137 occupying former farm lands. Quite obviously these residencies, whether in the city or suburbia, occupy individual parcels of land significantly smaller than farms (on which nearly all Old Orders live). The greater degree of progressive residential clustering is therefore understandable. Old Order clustering is best explained by histor- ical inertia, rigid adherence to traditional ideals stressing within-group bonds, and mode of transportation. The importance of this latter factor should not be under- estimated. Though the farm tractor is used heavily for work-related travel, use of the horse-and-buggy is dictated for social trips (visiting) and journey to church. Social intercourse and worship are of paramount importance in Old Order society. The mode of transport needed to meet these societal necessities is slow and time-consuming, and thus tends to foster a compact resi- dential distribution. Again, Old Order clustering is clearly evident. And while it is less so than the progressive case, it is of a more traditional variety. This is evidenced by Figures 15 and 16 which show the distribution of respective group households as a percentage of total households.9 9Every sampleable household was located on the latest l:24,000 scale maps of Rockingham County published by the U.S. Geological Survey. These maps were arranged in composite form with a one-square-mile grid superimposed. In each square mile, the percentage of total residencies 138 OLD ORDER MENNONHE RESIDENCES AS PERCENT OF TOTAL RESIDENCES /r\ PER SQUARE MILE \ \ / \ L _ J Timberville r? E under I°/o f k _ o \\ \kBroadway I26 2550:; --.'r _ ' o m 5: —75°/. - over 75% u“ ’ “ ROEF INGHAM co. .\ / 4.. ,’ HARRISONBURG l l \ .0 k 1 _ J . Bridgewoter '3. Figure 15 139 PROGRESSIVE MENNONITE RESIDENCES AS PERCENT OF TOTAL RESIDENCES PER SQUARE MILE D “Sf I79 I — 25% 26—507. m 5| —75°/. - over 75% \ MAP AREA ROCI‘ INGHAM CO. Figure 16 140 A rural stronghold is seen in the Old Order map. Though pronounced clustering of progressives is evidenced in Figure 7, it is clearly ”diluted" in Figure 16. This re- sults from close juxtaposition with a large number of non-Mennonite homes. Only in the Park View area (northern- most Harrisonburg) does something approaching a homogeneous stronghold appear. But the areal extent is small and cannot be classified as rural. Therefore, though Old Order residential distribution is less clustered than that of progressives, it nonetheless conforms much more closely to tradition. While the hypothesis as a whole cannot be accepted, this latter fact should be kept clearly in mind. 2c. Old Order Mennonite farm sizes are significantly smaller than those of progressive Mennonites. We have seen that subdivision of farm land has historically been a means of permitting a maximum number of peOple to conform to the rural and agricultural ideals. Relatively small farms have thus been one facet of tradi- tional Mennonite culture areas. Data for the testing of this hypothesis were garnered from the 1969 Census of Agriculture and the inhabited by a sampleable family unit was then calculated. The only exception to this procedure relates to the towns, where buildings were too clustered to be depicted indi- vidually on the Geological Survey maps. Coverage of these areas on the author's maps represents estimations based on field observation. Additionally, several Geological Survey maps utilized were dated 1967, and thus did not account for fairly recent housing projects. Extensive field observation was again used to rectify the deficiency. 141 Rockingham County Appraiser's Office.10 Utilizing the latter source, acreage statistics for each of the 192 sampleable farm households (125 Old Orders, 67 progres- sives) were recorded and analyzed. These indicated an average of 72.8 acres for Old Order farms and 140.5 acres for progressive farms. The progressive average is nearly twice that of the Old Orders! (The average for Rockingham County as a whole is 123.5 acres.11) When these data were subjected to chi square analysis, a statistically significant difference at the .01 level was discovered. The hypothesis is therefore accepted. One should keep in mind that the 72.8 acres for Old Orders is, again, an average figure. While some farms are larger (the largest being 172 acres), others are decidedly smaller. One Old Order, in fact, maintains a viable dairy operation on a mere 31 acres. While this case is uncommon, it suggests the very intensive land use that is typical of this group (Fig. 17). Concomitantly, Old Order farmsteads tend to be attractive in appearance, expansive in the number of buildings, and bordered by a large flower-festooned truck garden. (”An untidy farm," 10The assistance of Mr. Gilbert Miller, Rockingham County Appraiser, is gratefully acknowledged. 11U.S., Department of Commerce, 1969 Census of Agriculture, Vol. I, Part 24 (Washington, D.C.: Govern- ment Printing Office, 1972), p. 633. 142 FIGURE 17 The Old Order Mennonite Core Area The nine square miles shown in this aerial photograph contains 52 Old Order Mennonite farmsteads (slightly more than one-third of all sampleable Old Order homesteads). The predominance of farming as a way of life is clearly suggested as are intensive agricultural practices. Dayton is just off the lower right-hand corner of the photo. The major highway cutting across the upper right-hand corner is U.S. Rt. 33. Source: U.S., Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Invitation No. ASCS-3—65-DC, Item 2. Photo No. DJN-3FF-23. 143 Figure 17 144 noted one Old Order, "is a disgrace.") These traits, however, are not exclusive to the Old Orders. Many pro- gressive and non-Mennonite farms exhibit similar qualities. Besides diminutive acreage, the only visual characteristic strongly suggesting Old Order occupance is an acre or so by the house set aside for the grazing of horses (Fig. 18). 2d. As opposed to progressive Mennonites, Old Order macro travel behavior exhibits a lesser degree of contact with the non-Mennonite world. Macro travel behavior was investigated by asking each respondent to report (a) the destination of his last trip outside the state of Virginia, and (b) the destination of the longest trip ever taken. An enquiry was also made as to the purpose of these trips. Data related to educa- tion and residential desirability in the previous set of hypotheses suggest that the desire for minimization of external contact is clearly stronger among the Old Orders. The present hypothesis again addresses this propensity. While travel behavior per se is not an overt, visual characteristic of Mennonite culture areas, we have seen that minimization of contacts with the non-Mennonite world has been a traditional strategy for cultural survival. Figures 19 and 20 display the most recent trips for respective group members. The Old Order map shows a clear orientation towards other Old Order enclaves. (The reader may again wish to refer to the map showing national 14S Anonymouocm m.nonu5m 292:. 52.015 “.0 whim mxh mew—.30 EE. Hzmomm ._.w0_2 mo zo_._._wmmmwomn_ >m zmxs. <_z_om_> mo m._.<._.m 9.: ”3.9.30 n__m._. .rzmomm .502 no zo_.rm 2.3.4... mw>w as: Hmmwzon. “.0 zoidzfimmo 151 mm mufimwm .. . . 1 mozcoccos. 8.36:2 omen . o mzo_....mwwmwomd >m zmxs. mw>m Em... hmwozon. “.0 zo....<:o<¢.mmwmocmd >m medh mm>w 1.x... ...mwozo... ...O 20:42....mmo 153 progressives remain staunchly opposed to military service but are amenable to some form of alternative public work. CPS, which involves such things as health, agricultural, conservation and construction work, is a common alternative.) The progressive maps indicate less restricted travel behavior. Overseas travel is quite pronounced, and we should not be surprised at the prominence of the Holy Land in such trips (Fig. 23). Parenthetically, only one Old Order interviewee had ever traveled overseas. He had been in Poland on CPS reconstruction work after World War II. All told, 61 percent (65 out of 107) of the longest trips taken by progressives had not been directed towards fellow believers. For the Old Orders the com- parable figure is 39 percent (12 out of 31). This dif- ference is also significant at the .05 level. The hypo- thesis is therefore accepted. 2e. Old Order Mennonites possess a greater degree of proficiency in ”Pennsylvania Dutch” than progressives. This language, born in eighteenth century Pennsylvania, became not only a common language for gener- ations of Mennonites, but also a general tool for cultural survival. While propensity to preserve this language can be linked with several traditional values, the ideals of separation and nonconformity are paramount. Accordingly, 154 one would expect greater proficiency in "Dutch" among Old Orders. Data for the testing of this hypothesis were ob- tained in a straightforward manner. Each of the 138 re- spondents was asked to rate his/her proficiency in the dialect as either Excellent, Fair, Poor, or None. "Ex- cellent” was used to denote fluency, "Poor” the knowledge of a few words and phrases, and "Fair" an intermediate acquaintance with the dialect. The results of this survey are shown in Table 9. Again we have a dramatic between-group difference. While 23 percent of the Old Order sample professed no knowledge of "Pennsylvania Dutch," 61 percent of the progressives answered likewise. At the other end of the scale, 42 percent of the Old Orders rated their profi- ciency as Fair or Excellent. Only 15 percent of the progressives did the same. When the tabular data were analyzed by means of a 2x4 contingency table, a statis- tically significant difference at the .01 level was dis- covered.‘ Old Orders do indeed possess a greater profi- <3iency in "Pennsylvania Dutch" than progressives. The Ihypothesis is accepted. The above suggests a certain degree of contra-