The Early Anabaptists

[cmbl]

I'm more interested in any evidence people have about early Anabaptists and plain dress or Plain Dress.

The Strasbourg "Agreement" or "Discipline" (Abred) of 1568 includes two points on plain dress among twenty-five points in total. It is an agreement of ordained Swiss Brethren who met in conference in Strasbourg. It was reaffirmed in 1607. It has also been called an Ordnungsbrief, or "Letter of Regulations." Here are four of its points:

19. Those members who wish to trap or shoot game shall be reprimanded according to the order of the Lord. If they are disobedient, they are to be punished with the ban and excluded, unless it is done in free territory.

20. Tailors and seamstresses shall hold to the plain and simple style and make absolutely nothing for pride's sake.

(Also numbered 20.) Brothers and sisters shall remain with the present form of our regulation [Ordnung] concerning apparel and have nothing made for the sake of pride.

21. If a brother or sister has money or valuables and wishes to entrust them to someone, they ought to give such things to brothers and sisters, and not trust them to the world.

Translations of the full document are available from Mennonite Quarterly Review and in Classics of the Radical Reformation No. 13: Later Writings of the Swiss Anabaptists, 1529-1592.

[JohnH]

19. Those members who wish to trap or shoot game shall be reprimanded according to the order of the Lord. If they are disobedient, they are to be punished with the ban and excluded, unless it is done in free territory.

This is admittedly a bunny trail (or other game trail), but what is this saying? Is this about poaching?

[cmbl]

19. Those members who wish to trap or shoot game shall be reprimanded according to the order of the Lord. If they are disobedient, they are to be punished with the ban and excluded, unless it is done in free territory.

This is admittedly a bunny trail (or other game trail), but what is this saying? Is this about poaching?

Haha, yes I think so. Basically illegal hunting.

I think Edsel Burdge has gone thru the entire document in one of his talks.

[Bootstrap]

I'm more interested in any evidence people have about early Anabaptists and plain dress or Plain Dress.

The Strasbourg "Agreement" or "Discipline" (Abred) of 1568 includes two points on plain dress among twenty-five points in total. It is an agreement of ordained Swiss Brethren who met in conference in Strasbourg. It was reaffirmed in 1607. It has also been called an Ordnungsbrief, or "Letter of Regulations." Here are four of its points:

19. Those members who wish to trap or shoot game shall be reprimanded according to the order of the Lord. If they are disobedient, they are to be punished with the ban and excluded, unless it is done in free territory.

20. Tailors and seamstresses shall hold to the plain and simple style and make absolutely nothing for pride's sake.

(Also numbered 20.) Brothers and sisters shall remain with the present form of our regulation [Ordnung] concerning apparel and have nothing made for the sake of pride.

21. If a brother or sister has money or valuables and wishes to entrust them to someone, they ought to give such things to brothers and sisters, and not trust them to the world.

Translations of the full document are available from Mennonite Quarterly Review and in Classics of the Radical Reformation No. 13: Later Writings of the Swiss Anabaptists, 1529-1592.

Thanks, cmbl! This also fits squarely in the timeframe I identified as Early Anabaptist (1525-1650).

As I interpret this, I think it says that garments must be:

- plain
- simple
- functional

Not designed to display status, wealth, fashion, or to show off. I don't think it implies any kind of uniformity, and I don't think it implies clothing that would stand out in any way. It also seems to apply this not only to what people wear, but also to what they make. Tailors or seamstresses are not supposed to make such clothes for other people, either. If the King asked them to make such a garment, they should refuse?

I am not sure I am reading this correctly, so please chime in if I got it wrong.

[R7ehr]

As I interpret this, I think it says that garments must be:

- plain
- simple
- functional

Not designed to display status, wealth, fashion, or to show off. I don't think it implies any kind of uniformity, and I don't think it implies clothing that would stand out in any way. It also seems to apply this not only to what people wear, but also to what they make. Tailors or seamstresses are not supposed to make such clothes for other people, either. If the King asked them to make such a garment, they should refuse?

I am not sure I am reading this correctly, so please chime in if I got it wrong.

We don't wear uniforms either. We merely ban certain details and designs.
If you think that our clothing is uniform today, I suspect that Bootstrap in 1568 would have considered the these folks to be promoters of "uniformity" as well.

[ken_sylvania]

I'm more interested in any evidence people have about early Anabaptists and plain dress or Plain Dress.

The Strasbourg "Agreement" or "Discipline" (Abred) of 1568 includes two points on plain dress among twenty-five points in total. It is an agreement of ordained Swiss Brethren who met in conference in Strasbourg. It was reaffirmed in 1607. It has also been called an Ordnungsbrief, or "Letter of Regulations." Here are four of its points:

19. Those members who wish to trap or shoot game shall be reprimanded according to the order of the Lord. If they are disobedient, they are to be punished with the ban and excluded, unless it is done in free territory.

20. Tailors and seamstresses shall hold to the plain and simple style and make absolutely nothing for pride's sake.

(Also numbered 20.) Brothers and sisters shall remain with the present form of our regulation [Ordnung] concerning apparel and have nothing made for the sake of pride.

21. If a brother or sister has money or valuables and wishes to entrust them to someone, they ought to give such things to brothers and sisters, and not trust them to the world.

Translations of the full document are available from Mennonite Quarterly Review and in Classics of the Radical Reformation No. 13: Later Writings of the Swiss Anabaptists, 1529-1592.

Thanks, cmbl! This also fits squarely in the timeframe I identified as Early Anabaptist (1525-1650).

As I interpret this, I think it says that garments must be:

- plain
- simple
- functional

Not designed to display status, wealth, fashion, or to show off. I don't think it implies any kind of uniformity, and I don't think it implies clothing that would stand out in any way. It also seems to apply this not only to what people wear, but also to what they make. Tailors or seamstresses are not supposed to make such clothes for other people, either. If the King asked them to make such a garment, they should refuse?

I am not sure I am reading this correctly, so please chime in if I got it wrong.

I don't think it necessarily "proves" any kind of specific style, but considered in conjunction with Sebastian Franck's comments about the Anabaptists having detailed regulations about clothing I think there's reason to suspect the "present form of our regulation" likely refers to something more specific than "plain, simple, and functional."

I think what this is likely saying is:
1. Tailors and seamstresses should only make plain and simple clothing. (There is no mention that they should only make clothes meeting "the form of our regulation.")
2. Members should only wear clothing that is in accordance with "the present form of our regulation" and, additionally, is not for pride's sake. The "regulation" referred to is obviously more detailed than simply "plain and simple" or the author would have simply said "plain and simple" like he did for the tailors. The added mention of "nothing for pride's sake" acts as a catch-all reminding of the purpose of the regulation and that just because a certain fashion accessory wasn't forbidden in the regulation didn't automatically mean it was OK.

[ohio jones]

Tailors or seamstresses are not supposed to make such clothes for other people, either. If the King asked them to make such a garment, they should refuse?

They could perhaps make plain clothes, and say that the fashionable parts are invisible to the unregenerate.

[Ernie]

I think what this is likely saying is:
1. Tailors and seamstresses should only make plain and simple clothing. (There is no mention that they should only make clothes meeting "the form of our regulation.")
2. Members should only wear clothing that is in accordance with "the present form of our regulation" and, additionally, is not for pride's sake. The "regulation" referred to is obviously more detailed than simply "plain and simple" or the author would have simply said "plain and simple" like he did for the tailors. The added mention of "nothing for pride's sake" acts as a catch-all reminding of the purpose of the regulation and that just because a certain fashion accessory wasn't forbidden in the regulation didn't automatically mean it was OK.

This is the conclusion I came to as well.

[Bootstrap]

As I interpret this, I think it says that garments must be:

- plain
- simple
- functional

Not designed to display status, wealth, fashion, or to show off. I don't think it implies any kind of uniformity, and I don't think it implies clothing that would stand out in any way. It also seems to apply this not only to what people wear, but also to what they make. Tailors or seamstresses are not supposed to make such clothes for other people, either. If the King asked them to make such a garment, they should refuse?

I am not sure I am reading this correctly, so please chime in if I got it wrong.

We don't wear uniforms either. We merely ban certain details and designs.
If you think that our clothing is uniform today, I suspect that Bootstrap in 1568 would have considered the these folks to be promoters of "uniformity" as well.

I suspect not. I think these Anabaptists would have blended in with most other people, who did not have status or wealth and could not afford fashion.

Many plain Anabaptists wear clothing that makes it easy to know they are plain Anabaptists just by looking at them, and if you look at the women, perhaps you can also identify which branch. In a given group, it often looks like the women are using the same patterns. The clothing signals a specific identity.

In modern American society, jeans are plain, simple, functional clothing. And they blend in with what most people are wearing. It's easy to find modest clothing that blends in. Modest in the sense of inexpensive and not showy. Many Christians try to dress that way. Some plain Anabaptists would not accept the clothing those Christians choose.

[Ernie]

Many plain Anabaptists wear clothing that makes it easy to know they are plain Anabaptists just by looking at them, and if you look at the women, perhaps you can also identify which branch. In a given group, it often looks like the women are using the same patterns. The clothing signals a specific identity.

I have heard this argument from you since we first became acquainted around 18 years ago on MD. It comes up over and over.

I don't know that anybody on MN disagrees with you about this. I'm not sure who it is you are trying to persuade or what point you are trying to make. Can you explain?