Britain’s first chocolate Easter egg was sold 150 years ago this year, by the chocolatier, Joseph Fry. It was hollow and filled with sweets. Whether Fry’s primary interest was in the egg as a Christian symbol, or whether the creation of a hollow egg was a means of showing off the new technique he had developed for moulding chocolate is, well, a chicken and egg question.
But Fry was undoubtedly a devout Christian of the Quaker variety, as were the other two of the big three British chocolatiers, the Cadburys and the Rowntrees, all of whom were directed towards manufacturing through being barred from most professions. They were drawn to chocolate in particular because they regarded it as a more moral treat, and that was how it was widely perceived: an innocent indulgence, supplied by men whose Quaker conscience dictated that they combine its manufacture with good works. In a wider sense, we might see that Fry’s egg as symbolising a strain of particularly moral — indeed, overtly Christian — capitalism, operating paternalistically both in its own workplaces and the surrounding community. The story of these eggs, and the companies that made them, therefore forms a simulacrum for the narrative of Britain since the Industrial Revolution, and the transition from local, civic-minded commerce toward globalised, faceless big business.
I grew up in Seventies York, upon which the Rowntrees had been showering gifts for nearly a century. The primary benefactor had been Joseph Rowntree II, heir to the first Joseph Rowntree, who’d established the business in 1822. In 1893, JR II established Rowntree’s garden factory in York, whose 4,000 employees benefited from a female welfare worker, a doctor’s surgery, sick and provident funds, savings and pensions schemes. Nearby was — and is — New Earwsick, a model village for employees with pretty Arts and Crafts houses, each with a fruit tree in the front garden, and no two successive trees bore the same fruit, to promote crop-swapping and neighbourliness. There was a toytown air about the signs indicating “Butcher”, “Greengrocer”, ”Chemist”. No sign indicated “pub” of course.
Several members of my extended family worked for Rowntree’s, and they were entitled to heavily discounted chocolate, some of which came my way, and my mother always included a Kit-Kat in my packed lunch, a token of love from her, and (it seemed) the Rowntrees themselves. One could still almost believe that their primary concern was philanthropy and the creation of charitable trusts, while they left the chocolate making to secular subordinates.
I benefited in many ways from Rowntree largesse, playing tennis and swimming in Rowntree Park, acting in plays at the Joseph Rowntree Theatre and swotting for exams in York Library, which they’d funded. I never went inside the factory but did once visit its equivalent in the Midlands: Cadbury’s Bournville complex. This too is a garden factory, with a similarly relaxed spaciousness between the buildings, like pieces on a chess board towards the end of a game. I recall seeing, among many other tokens of paternalism, the factory dentist’s surgery, indicated by a sign in Cadbury’s purple. At the time (early 2000s) Cadbury’s seemed to have retained the “purity” (a word much employed in their advertising) we appeared to have lost in York.
Rowntree’s was acquired by Nestlé in 1988, and I remember being shocked at seeing the Swiss flag flying from the factory roof. Nestlé have since invested heavily in the York factory, but they admit that they don’t continue the Rowntree tradition of York benefactions, and the extent of their wider philanthropy is mysterious to me. A spokesperson for the firm said: “We don’t necessarily PR our charitable work.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWorth reading for this alone: “without the aid of the supermarkets, who won’t stock an explicitly religious egg”
Agreed. I didn’t know that. I wonder why? They certainly are not shy when it comes to all the commercial paraphernalia around Christmas.
Increasingly, they can’t say “Christmas” either. Seasons greetings etc
Yes, as with Easter, Christ doesn’t get a mention in supermarkets and shops among the whole madness of buy, buy buy! It’s also becoming increasingly difficult to buy anything associated with the Christmas story such as cribs or religious Christmas (or Easter) greeting cards.
Yes, as with Easter, Christ doesn’t get a mention in supermarkets and shops among the whole madness of buy, buy buy! It’s also becoming increasingly difficult to buy anything associated with the Christmas story such as cribs or religious Christmas (or Easter) greeting cards.
Increasingly, they can’t say “Christmas” either. Seasons greetings etc
They should try selling to Americans or opening a division in the Bible Belt. Organized religion is alive and well over here. There are plenty of supermarkets who would stock such an item here.
Agreed. I didn’t know that. I wonder why? They certainly are not shy when it comes to all the commercial paraphernalia around Christmas.
They should try selling to Americans or opening a division in the Bible Belt. Organized religion is alive and well over here. There are plenty of supermarkets who would stock such an item here.
Worth reading for this alone: “without the aid of the supermarkets, who won’t stock an explicitly religious egg”
The author comments on the Easter Egg as “an innocent indulgence, supplied by men whose Quaker conscience dictated that they combine its manufacture with good works”.
The Easter Egg may have lost much of its Christian symbolism but it is less capitalism that has weakened the impulse to do good works as the Welfare State.
In providing so much of the infrastructure of life through compulsory taxation the welfare state has taken over much of the good works that Christian capitalists saw as their moral obligation. Christian charity is reduced to filling in the gaps that open up in the bureaucratic state’s largesse – to attempting to ameliorate the lives not simply of their fellow men and women but to grapple with more intractable and untypical areas of poverty. Inevitably in addition Christian Charity must be weakened when shareholders can’t be assumed to have Christian Quaker consciences.
The impulse to give to ameliorate the lives of others still exists but is increasingly shouldered aside by government using taxation to pump money into favoured Charities that have themselves in many cases become bureaucratised businesses. Many now turn to local genuinely voluntary charities to satisfy the need to help others.
I prefer the state, whose government can be booted out every 5 years, to some lady bountiful type. Although I will say, if I wasn’t an atheist, then Quakerism is the only religion I’d consider joining, except that they’re pacifists, and I’m not one.
I’m sorry that no religion or spirituality has managed to make itself worthy of you
While I’m slightly envious of those believe you’d see all you family and friends again after you die as it’s more comforting than thinking you’ll be tossed in a hole and eaten by worms, and I can appreciate how the church has shaped attitudes and morals in western societies and the influences it has had, I’m not going to spend my Sunday’s in a church listening to a vicar drone on about something I ultimately don’t believe to be true.
Amen
Amen
He didn’t mention spirituality. It’s a mistake religionists frequently make, to conflate the two. Religion actually gets in the way of true spirituality.
As I’ve asked elsewhere, Steve, I’d like to know what you mean by ‘spirituality’. Atheists often come up with remarks such as ‘I’m not religious, but I am spiritual’. What DO they mean? ‘Spirit’ implies something metaphysical, but they are strong believers in the purely material. I think such atheists are trying to have their cake and eat it. ‘I’m not religious, but I can also claim to have those loftier notions associated with religious belief; I’m a serious, thoughtful, good person.’
As I’ve asked elsewhere, Steve, I’d like to know what you mean by ‘spirituality’. Atheists often come up with remarks such as ‘I’m not religious, but I am spiritual’. What DO they mean? ‘Spirit’ implies something metaphysical, but they are strong believers in the purely material. I think such atheists are trying to have their cake and eat it. ‘I’m not religious, but I can also claim to have those loftier notions associated with religious belief; I’m a serious, thoughtful, good person.’
That’s ok thanks, I’m not too worried. Being an atheist pretty much rules out any religion for me, but I warmed to “Quakers” because of their thoughtful, friendly and less judgemental nature; its a shame their numbers are on the decline.
While I’m slightly envious of those believe you’d see all you family and friends again after you die as it’s more comforting than thinking you’ll be tossed in a hole and eaten by worms, and I can appreciate how the church has shaped attitudes and morals in western societies and the influences it has had, I’m not going to spend my Sunday’s in a church listening to a vicar drone on about something I ultimately don’t believe to be true.
He didn’t mention spirituality. It’s a mistake religionists frequently make, to conflate the two. Religion actually gets in the way of true spirituality.
That’s ok thanks, I’m not too worried. Being an atheist pretty much rules out any religion for me, but I warmed to “Quakers” because of their thoughtful, friendly and less judgemental nature; its a shame their numbers are on the decline.
On purely utilitarian grounds, state ‘charity’ (which isn’t charity at all) welfare statism is typically less effective & far more wasteful than private genuinely religious charities (I am also an atheist btw). That said, many NGO charities are pretty ghastly as well, it is usually the smaller more targeted ones that actually get vastly better bang-for-the-buck
My comment was directed to the suggestion that it was capitalism that had weakened the Christian charitable contribution to welfare displayed by the Quaker Chocolate firms. I suspect that the sort of charity provided by the directors of explicitly Christian firms was better targeted and more effective than modern government intervention. The National Health service merely replaced a network of charitable and self-help organisations and I suspect pound for pound the pre-NHS was more effective but was piecemeal and patchy.
Unfortunately, we can’t boot out our effective rulers every 5 years they remain very much in place whatever the complexion of the party whose Ministers circle ineffectually and briefly as heads of various departments.
I’m sorry that no religion or spirituality has managed to make itself worthy of you
On purely utilitarian grounds, state ‘charity’ (which isn’t charity at all) welfare statism is typically less effective & far more wasteful than private genuinely religious charities (I am also an atheist btw). That said, many NGO charities are pretty ghastly as well, it is usually the smaller more targeted ones that actually get vastly better bang-for-the-buck
My comment was directed to the suggestion that it was capitalism that had weakened the Christian charitable contribution to welfare displayed by the Quaker Chocolate firms. I suspect that the sort of charity provided by the directors of explicitly Christian firms was better targeted and more effective than modern government intervention. The National Health service merely replaced a network of charitable and self-help organisations and I suspect pound for pound the pre-NHS was more effective but was piecemeal and patchy.
Unfortunately, we can’t boot out our effective rulers every 5 years they remain very much in place whatever the complexion of the party whose Ministers circle ineffectually and briefly as heads of various departments.
“Charity is a cold, grey, loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim.” Clement Attlee, in The Social Worker, 1920
Hands up anyone who LOVES to pay their taxes and is happy knowing how well the government uses it.
Hands up who would be happy to give the equivalent amount to the church to spend as they see fit
Yes, but what are you going to replace it with? I have some anarcho-capitalist sympathies, but some semblance of state is necessary and usually has the economies of scale to solve big problems. My membership of a civilised society demands a membership fee, and that’s what I see my taxes as.
Hands up who would be happy to give the equivalent amount to the church to spend as they see fit
Yes, but what are you going to replace it with? I have some anarcho-capitalist sympathies, but some semblance of state is necessary and usually has the economies of scale to solve big problems. My membership of a civilised society demands a membership fee, and that’s what I see my taxes as.
“cold, grey, loveless..” not Attlee, but Francis Beckett 1997 (Beckett tweaked it from Robert Louis Stevenson’s 1888 essay Beggars)
The government is the very last organisation I’d trust my money too and paying taxes has never felt so awful to us before as it has over the last few years. There was peace in thinking it was to support those at the less fortunate end of our (local) societal system. Now most of us know better and – mostly due to mass immigration- it’s much like chucking it into a black hole. After the lockdowns Etc, recent talk of ‘investigation into royal slavery trade links and possible need to pay reparations’ likely from the public purse lately is another one of those things.
I’m sure that there are many, many organisations below the government in even your pecking order for entrusting your money but hyperbole aside what is your alternative?
I’m sure that there are many, many organisations below the government in even your pecking order for entrusting your money but hyperbole aside what is your alternative?
Hands up anyone who LOVES to pay their taxes and is happy knowing how well the government uses it.
“cold, grey, loveless..” not Attlee, but Francis Beckett 1997 (Beckett tweaked it from Robert Louis Stevenson’s 1888 essay Beggars)
The government is the very last organisation I’d trust my money too and paying taxes has never felt so awful to us before as it has over the last few years. There was peace in thinking it was to support those at the less fortunate end of our (local) societal system. Now most of us know better and – mostly due to mass immigration- it’s much like chucking it into a black hole. After the lockdowns Etc, recent talk of ‘investigation into royal slavery trade links and possible need to pay reparations’ likely from the public purse lately is another one of those things.
I prefer the state, whose government can be booted out every 5 years, to some lady bountiful type. Although I will say, if I wasn’t an atheist, then Quakerism is the only religion I’d consider joining, except that they’re pacifists, and I’m not one.
“Charity is a cold, grey, loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim.” Clement Attlee, in The Social Worker, 1920
The author comments on the Easter Egg as “an innocent indulgence, supplied by men whose Quaker conscience dictated that they combine its manufacture with good works”.
The Easter Egg may have lost much of its Christian symbolism but it is less capitalism that has weakened the impulse to do good works as the Welfare State.
In providing so much of the infrastructure of life through compulsory taxation the welfare state has taken over much of the good works that Christian capitalists saw as their moral obligation. Christian charity is reduced to filling in the gaps that open up in the bureaucratic state’s largesse – to attempting to ameliorate the lives not simply of their fellow men and women but to grapple with more intractable and untypical areas of poverty. Inevitably in addition Christian Charity must be weakened when shareholders can’t be assumed to have Christian Quaker consciences.
The impulse to give to ameliorate the lives of others still exists but is increasingly shouldered aside by government using taxation to pump money into favoured Charities that have themselves in many cases become bureaucratised businesses. Many now turn to local genuinely voluntary charities to satisfy the need to help others.
It is interesting that the author sees the decline of Quakerism in the UK as an example of the decline of public Christianity more broadly, as if Quakerism were just another Christian denomination. I think the connection is more complicated there.
Quakerism was one of the first Protestant sects to embrace the ‘just do good’ Social Gospel message that overwhelmed the larger denominations in the 20th century. And once you had replaced the Gospel with the Social Gospel (turning the message of Christianity on its head, from ‘you can’t do good’ to ‘you must do good’), you were left with just another good works club which asked little, which gave little, and which ultimately had little reason to exist. So now people that were Quakers 150 years ago are more likely to be passionately involved with secular charities.
As an American living in the UK, I remember the first time I saw a TV commercial here for a donkey charity, something which has no public profile in the US. I thought, in this country people send money to international charities to make old donkeys feel better in remote places… but you can’t pray on the street corner outside an abortion clinic lest you make a pregnant woman reflect on the weight of her decisions.
Is there any better example of the fundamental, underlying religious instinct of all humans, now squeezed through the narrow ideological limits of Modern Western Liberalism (you know: self-expression, authenticity, freedom, pleasure, “the pursuit of happiness”)?
Yes, that’s exactly correct. Easter is not about morality, and Christianity is not, or was not, (directly) about “charity.” St. Paul did say that the three primary Christian virtues were faith, hope and “charity,” it’s true, but the latter is an English derivation of the Latin word caritas, which had a meaning (love) that went far beyond personal or institutional generosity. So it isn’t capitalism, per se, that has corrupted Easter but every attempt to translate religion into secular terms.
As for the egg, that’s a widespread symbol of fertility and springtime (and therefore appears, at one level of meaning, among other agrarian symbols on the seder table at Passover, another spring festival). I don’t see why producing, selling or eating candy eggs is a major threat to Christianity or any other religion.
Yes, that’s exactly correct. Easter is not about morality, and Christianity is not, or was not, (directly) about “charity.” St. Paul did say that the three primary Christian virtues were faith, hope and “charity,” it’s true, but the latter is an English derivation of the Latin word caritas, which had a meaning (love) that went far beyond personal or institutional generosity. So it isn’t capitalism, per se, that has corrupted Easter but every attempt to translate religion into secular terms.
As for the egg, that’s a widespread symbol of fertility and springtime (and therefore appears, at one level of meaning, among other agrarian symbols on the seder table at Passover, another spring festival). I don’t see why producing, selling or eating candy eggs is a major threat to Christianity or any other religion.
It is interesting that the author sees the decline of Quakerism in the UK as an example of the decline of public Christianity more broadly, as if Quakerism were just another Christian denomination. I think the connection is more complicated there.
Quakerism was one of the first Protestant sects to embrace the ‘just do good’ Social Gospel message that overwhelmed the larger denominations in the 20th century. And once you had replaced the Gospel with the Social Gospel (turning the message of Christianity on its head, from ‘you can’t do good’ to ‘you must do good’), you were left with just another good works club which asked little, which gave little, and which ultimately had little reason to exist. So now people that were Quakers 150 years ago are more likely to be passionately involved with secular charities.
As an American living in the UK, I remember the first time I saw a TV commercial here for a donkey charity, something which has no public profile in the US. I thought, in this country people send money to international charities to make old donkeys feel better in remote places… but you can’t pray on the street corner outside an abortion clinic lest you make a pregnant woman reflect on the weight of her decisions.
Is there any better example of the fundamental, underlying religious instinct of all humans, now squeezed through the narrow ideological limits of Modern Western Liberalism (you know: self-expression, authenticity, freedom, pleasure, “the pursuit of happiness”)?
Though the author doesn’t present it as such, I’ve rarely seen a more succinct summation of how globalism is destroying our civilization, a little bit at a time. Small to medium sized companies still owned by a single family, companies with their own traditions and histories are gobbled up by faceless, nameless, and soulless international conglomerates, thereby permanently uprooting them from the culture they originally sprung from, and placing them into a one-size-fits-all cost minimized flower pot. Even Easter candy has been subjected to the scouring cloth of globalism that scrubs away culture, values, and meaning from everything it touches. It sickens me to think this is what our civilization has come to, the money changers in the temple, using God as a tool for profit and pretending righteousness through publicized self-glorifying forms of charity. Makes me want to overturn some tables.
Great comment. I wholeheartedly agree.
Great comment. I wholeheartedly agree.
Though the author doesn’t present it as such, I’ve rarely seen a more succinct summation of how globalism is destroying our civilization, a little bit at a time. Small to medium sized companies still owned by a single family, companies with their own traditions and histories are gobbled up by faceless, nameless, and soulless international conglomerates, thereby permanently uprooting them from the culture they originally sprung from, and placing them into a one-size-fits-all cost minimized flower pot. Even Easter candy has been subjected to the scouring cloth of globalism that scrubs away culture, values, and meaning from everything it touches. It sickens me to think this is what our civilization has come to, the money changers in the temple, using God as a tool for profit and pretending righteousness through publicized self-glorifying forms of charity. Makes me want to overturn some tables.
I did the old Law Society Finals in the College of Law in York in 1990-91. I had no ideas there was a chocolate factory there. On my first night, I borrowed my landlady’s lamp-less shopping bicycle and cycled around York. At one point, I thought I was going mad, as I could smell strawberry-flavoured chocolate. I then read up about the Quakers and what they did in the York area. I’m not religious, in an organised sense, but always admired the Quakers.
I lived round the corner from Rowntrees. You could always smell the works, the most common smell was a malty tinge.
I lived round the corner from Rowntrees. You could always smell the works, the most common smell was a malty tinge.
I did the old Law Society Finals in the College of Law in York in 1990-91. I had no ideas there was a chocolate factory there. On my first night, I borrowed my landlady’s lamp-less shopping bicycle and cycled around York. At one point, I thought I was going mad, as I could smell strawberry-flavoured chocolate. I then read up about the Quakers and what they did in the York area. I’m not religious, in an organised sense, but always admired the Quakers.
Most enjoyable read. My childhood in England was in the 50’s and early 60’s. At that time, and perhaps for several years after, I think it could be said that although the majority of English were not church-going Christians, we all knew and enjoyed the heritage,traditions, customs,and festivals that Christianity offered. The older generation still do. However, my parents and relatives never went to church except to get baptized, married and buried. Yet, at Easter we were all completely aware of why it was celebrated and what it represented. Therefore, the Easter Egg was seen much more as a symbol of something much much bigger than simply a chocolate treat. Today, when I look at my granddaughters, for example, they have zero clue as to the “meaning” of Easter. It’s just chocolate eggs and bunnies. Its a paradox that although I am not at all religious in the big R sense, I still feel a large regret of what Easter has become. The transition to a “liquid, rootless, profit-maximizing present”, as the author puts it, was inevitable. Everything else can be characterized in this way – why not chocolate eggs? What I regret is the loss of an opportunity for folks, especially the children, to have an opportunity to see the world as larger than themselves, if only for a day.
Yes modernity has stripped large chunks of the world of identity and meaning. If your primary concern is human fulfillment (something never mentioned by politicians but tangentially skirted by the ‘Wellness’ industry and the modern focus on personal choice etc.) rather than economic indicators (something constantly discussed) it’s been a long downward slide.
Yes modernity has stripped large chunks of the world of identity and meaning. If your primary concern is human fulfillment (something never mentioned by politicians but tangentially skirted by the ‘Wellness’ industry and the modern focus on personal choice etc.) rather than economic indicators (something constantly discussed) it’s been a long downward slide.
Most enjoyable read. My childhood in England was in the 50’s and early 60’s. At that time, and perhaps for several years after, I think it could be said that although the majority of English were not church-going Christians, we all knew and enjoyed the heritage,traditions, customs,and festivals that Christianity offered. The older generation still do. However, my parents and relatives never went to church except to get baptized, married and buried. Yet, at Easter we were all completely aware of why it was celebrated and what it represented. Therefore, the Easter Egg was seen much more as a symbol of something much much bigger than simply a chocolate treat. Today, when I look at my granddaughters, for example, they have zero clue as to the “meaning” of Easter. It’s just chocolate eggs and bunnies. Its a paradox that although I am not at all religious in the big R sense, I still feel a large regret of what Easter has become. The transition to a “liquid, rootless, profit-maximizing present”, as the author puts it, was inevitable. Everything else can be characterized in this way – why not chocolate eggs? What I regret is the loss of an opportunity for folks, especially the children, to have an opportunity to see the world as larger than themselves, if only for a day.
Hmmm… If we’d stuck to marking the cycles of the sun and moon and venerating Mother Nature, I think the world would have turned out better. And we could have still celebrated the spring equinox with chocolate eggs.
Hmmm… If we’d stuck to marking the cycles of the sun and moon and venerating Mother Nature, I think the world would have turned out better. And we could have still celebrated the spring equinox with chocolate eggs.