Submitted to

The History, Theology and Ethics Department at

Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary

Elkhart, Indiana

In partial fulfillment

of coursework in

The Master’s of Arts in Theological Studies

Tamara A. Sawatzky

May 2002

Copyright © 2002 Tamara A. Sawatzky

All Rights Reserved

ABSTRACT

The following thesis paints a landscape dotted with Dutch windmills. Dipping the paint brush into both religious and secular paint, can southern Russian communities have a secular icon, the Dutch windmill, creating theological implications for Russian Mennonites and later Canadian Mennonites?

Yes, they can. While religious icons seek to experience God, secular icons seek to commune with an experience. Secular icons act as signifiers. How can Russian Mennonites have icons when their ancestors distanced themselves from the church over that issue among many during the Reformation of 1525? Secular icons for Mennonites are by-products of Mennonite culture, as they are for any culture. A secular icon for Russian Mennonites is created based on who they are as a people. It is their cultural context and religiosity that takes a secular object and makes it an icon. Using the A.S. Friesen windmill located in Steinbach, MB as an example, the Dutch windmill creates theological implications within the landscape painting.

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments 6

Introduction 7

The Sawatzky Windmill 11

1. Defining Concepts 12

Material Culture

Religious Icons

The Trinity Icon

Secular Icons

Statue of Liberty

2. Perspectives on Religious Icons 32

Biblical

Eastern Orthodox Church

Theological analysis

Mennonites and art

3. A Landscape of Mennonite History 54

The Russian Mennonite experience

Map of Mennonite colonies in southern Russia

Mennonite culture

4. The Dutch Windmill 67

History of the windmill

Architecture of the windmill

Grinding process

Mennonites and windmills

Manitoba windmills

Mennonite Heritage Village and the A.S. Friesen windmill

5. The Windmill as an Icon for Russian Mennonites—An Analysis 80

Secular icon grid: Friesen windmill

Pilgrimages

Dedication ceremonies

Theological analysis

Bibliography

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project has been in the making for two years. Searching for a subject that combined both my church history and art interest, it was my father who first suggested studying the Dutch windmill. My parents, Bev and Erick Sawatzky, have instilled in me a keen awareness and gratitude toward my family roots. For that awareness and interest as well as their love and support during this project, I am deeply grateful. Thank you.

Several people made the nuts and bolts of this project happen. Dr. Rebecca Slough, serving as both my academic and thesis advisor has worked with me throughout my seminary studies. She challenged, encouraged, laughed and supported me. I am so thankful for her valuable teachings and advice. Dr. Karl Koop, serving as second reader, brought his attention to detail and historical suggestions. Thank you. Brad Schantz helped edit and offered advice for which I am thankful. Additionally, Karmen Krahn and Carole Boshart edited my paper. For their time and effort, I am very grateful.

It was a great pleasure to meet and work with Gary Snider, director of the Mennonite Heritage Village, Steinbach, Manitoba. His willingness to help and provide unlimited access to information aided my thesis. Thank you and blessings to you and your new windmill.

Thank you to Reynold Friesen for his love, constant support and helpful ideas ("So, I was thinking about your thesis today and …") His long distance presence and encouragement helped me to complete this project. Finally, I say a big thank you to all the friends and family who asked, "How is your thesis coming along?" Because of their loving friendship and support I am able to reply, "It’s done!"

INTRODUCTION

Hanging on the wall in my parent’s house is a photograph of my great-grandfather’s gristmill. In the black and white photograph, the Sawatzky windmill stands tall with its four arms stretched out, a dual fantail and cylinder-like concrete body. In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s the Sawatzky windmill ground grain into flour on the family estate in southern Russia. Of the two men standing on the ground in front of the mill, one is my grandfather, Peter P. Sawatzky. Above him standing on the wooden windmill deck is his little sister, Agatha. Each of my father’s seven siblings have this photograph in their homes. For the Sawatzky siblings the windmill of their ancestry acts as a reminder of their family history. Too young to know my grandfather before he died, the windmill photograph serves as a way of my knowing about my grandfather’s life and where he came from.

The following thesis grows out of gathering information about a physical object in order to learn about a culture. The Sawatzky windmill is that object and the Mennonite people living in the southern Russian windmill villages is that culture. In academic fields, the term material culture is applied to such an object. Material culture is the name given to both the area of study and the object being studied. It is what the name implies –a material object created by a culture for a specific function. The object is made by hand and when no longer needed, it is discarded and abandoned. By studying the object, the behavior, ideas and beliefs of the culture will be learned. The research and writings of Thomas Schlereth and E. McClung Fleming framed my analysis and thesis.

The Dutch windmill is a secular icon for Russian Mennonite communities. It is more than a piece of material culture. Different from a religious icon, an image that is venerated, invites prayer and contemplation, a secular icon invites one to commune with an experience. It does not act as an avenue in which one encounters God, but acts as an avenue in which one encounters an emotion or experience. The windmill evokes such a response from Russian Mennonites. An experience or feeling is recalled and the icon allows people to interact with the culture. Through the Dutch windmill Russian Mennonites can commune with the past and with a specific experience. In the following thesis I will demonstrate that the Dutch windmill of southern Russian communities functioned as a secular icon creating theological implications for Russian Mennonites and later Canadian Mennonites.

It is helpful to think of this thesis as a landscape painting and the chapters creating different dimensions of the composition. A landscape painting is built up on layers. First the background is built on which all the other information will stand against. Second, the middleground is added bringing greater depth and understanding to the composition. Third, the foreground is added continuing to create depth and perspective. Finally, the subject is painted and encompasses the entire composition. The subject incorporates the background, middleground and foreground and illustrates what the painting is attempting to say.

The first four chapters lay the foundational background information needed for processing chapter four and five, the Dutch windmill. Chapter one uses a large paint brush and applies the background paint on which key terms and concepts such as material culture, religious icon and secular icon will be defined as needed to understand the Dutch windmill as a piece of material culture. To see the Dutch windmill as a secular icon of Russian Mennonite people, one must understand what makes an object a secular icon. In addition to necessary definitions, chapter one will outline a material culture artifact model and secular icon criteria that will later be applied to the Dutch windmill.

Using a smaller brush, chapter two blends the middleground and studies the Biblical and historical perspectives of images. Old Testament and New Testament passages glean insights into attitudes towards images in the church. Historical perspectives on the role and use of images in the Orthodox Church tradition and the iconoclastic movements (726-787 and 814-843) are outlined and the writings of Ulrich Zwingli and Andreas Karlstadt help state the historic pre-Reformation perspective on images in the church. To understand the context and culture of the Russian Mennonite people, one must hear their story. Chapter three adds highlights to the foreground and tells the story of the Russian Mennonites as a means to illustrate how Russian Mennonites engaged in church, education and agriculture while separating themselves from the world. Cornelius J. Dyck’s book, Introduction to Mennonite History guided my research.

Using a small brush for detail, chapter four adds introductory points to the painting. It explains the history of the windmill starting with its growth and expansion, explaining the grinding process and finishing with connections between windmills and Mennonites.

Blending the colors of the first four chapters on the palette, chapter five uses their hue to create the subject of the landscape and apply it to the Dutch windmill. The Sawatzky windmill no longer stands and little factual information exists to analyze for this thesis. However, the above process will be applied to the A.S. Friesen windmill whose home is at the Mennonite Heritage Village, Steinbach, Manitoba. First built in 1877, the Friesen windmill history is long and unique including its relocation. Due to unsatisfactory output, the Steinbach windmill was sold and moved to an adjacent town shortly after completion. In the 1960’s plans were forming for a Mennonite museum and heritage village reminiscent of Mennonite village life in Prussia and Russia. Due to the importance of windmills in Mennonite villages it was natural for the Mennonite Heritage Village to include a windmill in the 1970 design for the museum. The windmill stood for thirty years until an arsonist burned it down in October 2000. The following day, plans to rebuild the windmill were underway. Living without their windmill was unthinkable to both the Heritage Village and the citizens of Steinbach. It was important to the city not only for tourism and educational purposes, but because the windmill reflects who the people of Steinbach are as descendents of Russian Mennonites. The windmill reflects the behavior, the ideas and the beliefs of the culture. The Friesen windmill, as a piece of material culture, will help illustrate how the Dutch windmill is a secular icon for Russian Mennonites.

My personal connection to the windmills of southern Russia is a perspective I bring to this thesis. The windmill is a part of my family history, and it plays an important role in shaping my story. In 1924 my paternal grandparents immigrated from southern Russia to Canada with few material possessions and my oldest uncle. They settled in Saskatchewan, learned to farm, and raised a family of eight children. The Russian Mennonite story told in this thesis is my story. I am a second generation Canadian and have lived in both Canada and the United States. A second perspective I bring is my academic studies and personal interests in the areas of art and history. My undergraduate degrees are in art and history and my current graduate study is in church history with an emphasis on the visual arts. Visual art and material culture are valuable learning tools and a means to engage history and theology. For me, the Dutch windmill is a natural way to learn about the Russian Mennonites, their culture and theology.

I am confident that this paper will engage people in conversation about Mennonites and art. One goal is to stimulate conversation about how Mennonites respond to art and what the art that is created indicates about Mennonites and their culture. A second goal is to open up conversation on how non-theological objects can be discussed theologically based on their cultural context. I eagerly anticipate the ongoing discussions and further painting of landscapes.

What is material culture? What are religious icons? What are secular icons and how are they different from religious icons? Foundational definitions and concepts are needed to begin discussing the Dutch windmill as a secular icon and installing the landscape background.

Amish quilts, the Statue of Liberty, McDonald’s arches, and the Dutch windmill are all objects of material culture. They are what gets "left behind" as Leland Ferguson argues. He states material culture is "all the things that people leave behind…all the things people make from the physical world—farm tools, ceramics, houses, furniture, toys, buttons, roads, cities." They are made and used objects, expressing how the object was made and used. As physical objects, material culture illustrates human behavior and ideas externally: what humans did, how they did it and what they thought. Behavior and the ideas of humans stem from traditions and rituals that have been tested and fine-tuned. The end products represent a culture’s organization and heritage, further solidifying its ability to function in the world, to interact socially and create meaning. The physical object illustrates the cultural beliefs of a creator, purchaser or user and material culture demonstrates purpose and intentionality. Created physical objects are shaped by the maker and often imposed by the culture.

Physical culture existed prior to verbal culture. Early humans crafted tools before learning a language. Around the world, a large non-literate population exists. Consequently non-verbal information provides a unique perspective on history. Unfamiliar language (written or spoken) makes comprehension difficult. If the language is unfamiliar, gestures and drawings are

needed to convey meaning. Unlike language, literacy is not a factor of material culture. Regardless of one’s ability to read and write, material culture exists as a unique way of knowing, learning and comprehending. Physical objects engage theuse of senses allowing one to assume the position of the maker, user or enjoyer of the object. Invited to see and touch through her senses, the past is interacted with differently. Material culture combines both the mind and the senses to make physical contact with the past. Historians are encouraged to obtain, "’fingertip acquaintance and fingertip knowledge’ of the material culture with which he works."

In 1875 A. Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers, a nineteenth-century anthropologist, encouraged his fellow social-science researchers to think of material culture as outward representations of mental ideas. Some anthropologists and archeologists thus used Pitt-River’s terms to describe objects while many continued to use the old descriptive terms. Those using the new categories sought clearer definitions, and anthropologists divided cultures into three areas; ideological culture (oral and written data), sociological culture (observations of human behavior), and material culture (evidence created by human hands). Material culture studies decreased in popularity in 1930, but in 1960 there was renewed interest in the field.Today many terms are used for the study of material culture such as: artifact studies, material life, aboveground archeology, and pots-and-pans history.

All cultures create material evidence. Despite their more-with-less tradition, Mennonites are no different. Their desire to live simply stems from being called to be stewards of God’s creation. They confess a life of simplicity, mutual aid, peace, and generosity. Baptizing individuals upon confession of faith, the belief and practice of peace as the will of God, and communion as a symbol of Christ’s body further characterizes Mennonites and separates them from other religious groups. These characteristics distinguish Mennonites and in no way exempt them from creating material culture. Reinhild Kauenhoven Janzen, a Mennonite and art historian, writes, "Things embody who we are and what we are historically…they concretize history." Mennonite material culture illustrates a society that remains unique and different from surrounding cultures. The objects Mennonites have created solidify their history and help define who they are.

Adding detail to the landscape painting, E. McClung Fleming writes of the importance of studying artifacts,

Fleming proposes the following two-fold model to study an artifact. In step one, there are five artifact properties: history, material, construction, design and function. A) History involves where and when the artifact was made, who made it, who it was for, why it was needed it and how it changed ownership, condition and function. B) Material describes what the artifact is made of (e.g. metal, ceramic, wood, fibers). C) Construction studies show how the artifact was made or produced and seeks to answer the question: how is the object put together to produce the end result? D) Design deals with the "structure, form, style, ornament, and iconography of the object." E) Function demonstrates the uses (intended function) and roles (unintended function) of the artifact within its culture.

In step two, four operations (identification, evaluation, cultural analysis and interpretation) need to be conducted in order to find answers to important questions. Identification incorporates classification, authentication and description. It establishes facts about the artifact and asks, "What is it?" A) Identification involves classifying the object according to its capacity (chair, coffeepot), material (textile), construction (painting, print), and subject matter (map). B) Identification seeks to obtain correct data concerning the five properties of the artifact asking, Is it authentic?

Evaluation establishes judgements about the artifact and often stems from comparisons with similar examples. There are two evaluation types, a) evaluation of aesthetic character and craftsmanship, effectiveness of overall design, and b) evaluation of fact based comparisons with like objects according to size, cost, and rarity.

Cultural analysis describes the relationship between artifact and its modern culture. It looks at the function of the artifact and illustrates the significance and meaning of human made objects. Function describes the concrete and abstract dimensions of an object: why was it made? How was it used? What were its unexpected roles? Fleming writes, "the artifact functions as a vehicle of communication conveying status, ideas, values, feelings, and meaning." Within cultural analysis, product analysis studies how the artifact is a product of the culture. Content analysis, on the other hand, studies the reflection of culture on the artifact. Fleming concludes, "From the standpoint of content analysis, every artifact is a document bearing some content of evidence about its culture, and in this role it can serve as primary source material for the cultural historian."

Interpretation seeks to establish the relationship between the object and its culture. Interpretation specifically looks at the correlation between a specific detail relating to the object and a detail of its culture’s belief system. A close relationship must exist between the object and culture in order to reveal "meaning, significance or relevance."

Paint from the palette is slowly being applied to the canvas. Taking shape is the concept of material culture as physical objects that cultures create and what, in turn, helps to define characteristics of the culture. Two specific examples of material culture are religious icons and secular icons. These two examples require the artist to dip her brush into both the material culture and icon but compose opposite subjects. Religious icons are physical representations of people who are venerated or highly respected and admired in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. These small painted panels serve as an avenue through which one can encounter God, often depicting images of Christ, the Virgin Mary or saints on small wooden panels. They are an outward illustration of Orthodox piety and are present in most Christian Orthodox homes.

Within the Eastern Orthodox tradition, Jesus is the icon of God as Jesus is the incarnation of God, and God sent Jesus Christ as an image of the invisible God. In this tradition, icons are not idols. Icons act as a medium through which individuals encounter God by the Holy Spirit. Henri Nouwen writes, "[Icons]…are created for the sole purpose of offering access through the gate of the visible, to the mystery of the invisible. Icons are painted to lead us into the inner room of prayer and bring us close to the heart of God." Extending an invitation, the physical presence of religious icons helps people pray and enter into a closer relationship with God. However, icons do not immediately open one’s eyes. Slowly, after time spent in prayerful contemplation, icons open up and reveal their gifts. Icons give more to one’s inner spirit than to one’s outer spirit –they speak to the inner spirit’s search for God. Nouwen writes, "Every time I entrust myself to these images, move beyond my curious questions about their origins, history and artistic value, and let them speak to me in their own language, they draw me into closer communion with the God of love." Inviting people to pray, icons act as a tool for learning Christian faith and tradition. Religious icons represent the tradition of many generations of believers. They silently invite believers to the tradition via prayer.

Religious icons have dogmatic character. The icon’s role is to visually depict the verbal teachings of the church. Therefore the icon receives canonical status from the church. Iconographers abide by a canon meant to insure the "spiritual continuity and a doctrinal unity that are valid beyond all national boundaries."

Dedication ceremonies and pilgrimages play an important role in the life of an icon. Recently an icon of St. Francis was blessed and dedicated to a group of Franciscan sisters who have served their community for over 100 years. An allschool Mass was held in celebration of the feast of St. Francis. The Byzantine icon was created and designed by Friar Richard Reiser who, during the dedication, explained many of the symbols found in the icon. The Mass was followed by a reception.

The icon is both dedicated and processed in dedication of others and when the icon is completed it receives a priestly blessing. The image is kept on the altar table of the sanctuary from Vespers until after the Liturgy the next day. At baptism one is given an icon representing the patron saint based on his or her name. At marriage the spouses’ fathers bless the couple with icons. At funerals, the baptismal icons and the Virgin icon are carried in front of the burial procession. Additionally, in Liturgy the icon is often incensed and carried in procession.

Like relics, icons attracted visitors. People traveled to see and worship icons that had received significant status in the church. Pilgrims have flocked to southern Poland since 1382 to view and pray before the icon Our Lady of Czestochowa, or the Black Madonna. The icon, said to have been painted by Saint Luke, is thought to have healing powers and has been highly venerated for centuries. Over a million pilgrims travel to pray, honor and thank the icon each year. August is the busiest month as hundreds of thousands of pilgrims arrive in Poland on foot to observe Assumption Day.

Further defining religious icons are the materials, style and process in which they are created. Naturally-based paints are used and the colors chosen hold significance for that which they become. A strict procedure is required and followed by the painter. Religious icons avoid three-dimensional techniques and illustrate a simple composition void of detail. Iconographers do not use tint or shading techniques or employ perspective, as the space is conveyed via the image, not the paint. Additionally, the iconographer does not sign the painting as he is not seeking self-advertisement.

A religious icon, in its raw physical form, is a piece of material culture. Icons are made

by the hands of an iconographer, used to depict the teachings of the church and invite people to pray. Religious icons are artifacts. They have been made by human hands and are physical objects that surround humans in both religious and secular spaces.

The following grid analyses the Trinity Icon according to Fleming’s two-fold artifact model, further illustrating how religious icons are pieces of material culture.

A basic understanding of humanity and their culture is gleaned from studying the artifacts humans created. What does the Trinity Icon indicate about the people who created it? What does the religious icon illustrate about its immediate culture? A great adoration for God and an awareness of scripture are indicated in the religious icon artifact. The icon painter’s devotion to God is shown in his obedience to established boundaries and to prayer. He willingly abided by the iconographer rules and participated in regular prayer to God and to the subject he was painting. A knowledge of scripture allowed the painter to depict in a new way the story of Abraham and Sarah. By focusing on the three visitors, Rublev visually captured the story indicating their importance to the reader and to the story.

Evident in the use of natural based paints and wood, a dedication to nature is illustrated. A closeness to the earth and what it provides for the people is subtly incorporated into the icon. God created the earth and all that inhabits it. To use natural materials honors God’s creation. It is a gift from God that is returned to God by the icon and the worship that surrounds it. Unknowingly, Rublev created a masterpiece. His original rendering of the Biblical story established a new standard in iconography and is now the template for other iconographers to follow.

Groups within the Russian culture required physical beauty to worship. The church at Sagorsk was one of those cultures. They separated themselves from other churches and people by incorporating icons and other visual objects into worship. Paintings and icons were, and still are, a method of teaching doctrine. For this reason icons exist and play an active role in worship. The people also realized and appreciated fine art. The church now worships with a reproduction while the original is in a Moscow gallery. The church understands the greatness of Rublev’s work and is willing to sacrifice the presence the icon has in their space so it might be enjoyed by others at a greater scale.

Rublev sought to include the culture and, include the on-looker in the icon. The circle created by the angel’s head is completed with the on-looker. The on-looker and the culture are invited to be a part of the icon. She, the on-looker, is invited to take an active role and complete the trinity with her presence. By standing in front of the icon or kneeling to pray, she is encountering both the icon and the trinity. The support of the culture surrounds her with their acceptance of icons in the church.

In contrast to religious icons, a secular icon is an image of a respected person or thing within a secular context. Secular is defined as being outside the realm of religious or spiritual practice. Not all images and objects are religious icons. Some are non-religious and serve as a signifier of a powerful secular experience. David Morgan states, "In practice, there are images or objects that are not icons in a religious sense, but are powerfully experienced as more than mere signifiers of something. So I’d like to carve out an intermediate category of experience called something like ‘secular icons.’" If a religious icon is an image within a religious context and illustrates saints and the holy, a secular icon is an image within a secular context. A secular icon does not seek to be or act as an avenue in which to encounter God. Rather a secular icon may open an encounter with an experience or feeling connection with God.

Despite their differences, secular icons share some traits with religious icons as demonstrated by dedication ceremonies and can act as pilgrimage sites. When the United States formally accepted The Statue of Liberty (SOL) as a gift from France in 1855, a large dedication

ceremony was held. The US President, along with members of his cabinet were present as well as French dignitaries. A parade was held and the statue received a twenty-one gun salute. Millions of visitors travel to see the SOL each year. The large statue is a sign of freedom. For nineteen-century immigrants the SOL is one of the first objects they saw as they ventured into new territory. It attracts viewers caught up in the mystique of statues, size and symbolism.

Of national buildings and statues, Albert Boime writes, "These national monuments pose as shrines to national ideas and, in reinforcing these ideals, affect our very consciousness and behavior." These pieces of material culture act as a symbol of cultural ethos emphasizing one’s thoughts and actions. Boime argues that the Statue of Liberty points to the idea of freedom and opportunity for Americans. The monument points to something beyond the monument itself, and is not literally freedom but represents freedom.

While secular icons are not religious icons, some images do inspire a powerful response within a large worldview context. Morgan continues, "A secular icon is an image whose association is so immediate, so visceral, that we are instantly put in mind of the image’s referent when we see the image. It is not that we commune with McDonald’s hamburger when we see the golden arches, but we recognize in them an entire domain of American experience." A secular icon is an image, that when viewed causes the viewer to instantly recall the reference. Russian Mennonites do not commune with the windmill when they are spotted in the front lawn or on shelves as nick-knacks. Rather Russian Mennonite recognize and respond to their experience and culture associated with the windmill. Morgan writes, "The character or ethos of a people, place or age can be neatly embodied in a symbol or face or monument." Amish quilts, the Statue of Liberty, McDonalds arches, and windmills are all symbols that represent people, places or ages.

Through the visual depiction of religious characters, the goal of religious icons is to commune with God. In contrast, secular icons are artifacts that give people the opportunity to interact with a culture. There are no rules or procedures regarding the medium or the artist. The artist is free to create and interpret. Secular icons teach about the culture offering a physical object in which one can experience the past. The goal of secular icons is to remember with an experience and ideal.

The following grid analyses the Statue of Liberty according to Fleming’s two-fold artifact model further illustrating how secular icons are pieces of material culture.

What does the Statue of Liberty (SOL) indicate about the people who created it? What does the secular icon illustrate about its immediate culture? The SOL was a gift from France to America. The statue was created by a French sculptor and architect with the pedestal designed by an American architect. But the statue stands on American soil, begging the questions, who created it and to which culture does it belong? The French made the statue because they greatly admired the democracy and liberty that existed in the United States. The statue was not meant to be an illustration of French humanity and culture but an appreciation of American humanity and culture. Therefore, the SOL indicates features of the American people who inspired it and illustrates characteristics of American culture.

The statue materials indicate a longevity of life and success. Copper and steel materials are not temporary but permanent and are intended to endure for years. The American people and democratic country are built on steel beams. Those strong beams are meant to last forever. The country and its people are perceived by itself and by others to be indestructible. The statue is not temporary. It is not an installation only meant to last for a specific amount of time in a specific setting. The statue is permanent and made out of permanent materials. The SOL is dressed in a toga-like dress reflecting the indomitable rule of the Roman Empire.

Like the Roman Empire’s 1000 year reign, the United Sates has the makings for a long and powerful existence. The White House, the Capitol Building and the Lincoln Memorial are all designed in the classical Roman style. They are reminiscent of the columned structures built in Rome; the Colisseum, the Aqueducts, and the Pantheon. They signify both innovative design and great strength. Like their Roman architecture, Roman sculpture depicted powerful leaders dressed in toga’s such as Marcus Aurrelius, Augustus, and Constantine the Great. Such Roman sculpture was displayed in an attempt to illustrate the rule and powers of the subject. While the statue was a gift from France, the SOL is sculpted in the same manner as Roman sculpture. She stands triumphantly and powerfully for all to see her.

The gift was honored and respected. It received a warm welcome by both the President and citizens of the United States who were proud to receive the SOL as a gift. Time, energy, and money was spent planning a celebration in her home. People wanted to take part in the celebration because they were proud of their freedom and independence. The SOL was and still is an important secular artifact.

Religious and secular icons are similar. Both are honored with dedication ceremonies celebrating the significance of the objects. Both are so highly respected and admired. People travel from all over the world to see and be in each objects presents.

Yet religious and secular icons are different. They stand at opposite ends of the spectrum. The Trinity icon sits at one end and represents the three angelic visitors to Abraham. Prayer and meditation occur as a means to connect with God. The SOL sits at the other end and represents freedom and independence. An experience of found liberty and new life is remembered.

In between lie their shared characteristics of dedications and pilgrimages. Here, on common ground, the two seemingly distinct concepts are brought together in equality. The images are created from the brush and paint of material culture and icons. While their outcomes are distinct, their background roots are the same.

The definitions and concepts outlined in this chapter paint background information for the windmill landscape. They fill in the canvas with basic color that, while mundane, is informative. Material culture surrounds us as we discard the artifact that helps define us. Within material culture are religious and secular icons. Different yet similar, icons tell about the culture that once existed. They lend an understanding and a way of knowing that informs our way of life.

To further distinguish between religious and secular icons more information concerning religious icons and their relationship to the Bible and history needs to be explored. Using a smaller brush for detail, these perspectives on religious icons serve as a connecting point between the background and the foreground in the landscape by establishing the Dutch windmill as a secular icon.

Before discussing the Biblical perspectives on icons, the terms image and icon need to be laid out. The term image is the English translation of the Greek word eikon meaning "likeness." Within the Biblical context both words mean the same. Remove them from the Biblical context and the words manifest themselves in different ways.

Image is a general term. Everything is and can be an image. When it is applied to a concrete image, that image can be like something. It can be a reproduction. The production of that likeness connects the word to icon. For example the floor plan of the Art Gallery in Windsor, Ontario is in the image of a ship. It is like a ship. The hull of the ship is in the center and provides access to the stairs and information areas, while the sails are the main gallery display spaces. The floor plan is like a ship but is not an actual ship. It is a gallery primarily displaying First Nation’s artwork and is built in the likeness of a ship.

Unlike an image, the icon offers specificity. It is a specific likeness of something. An icon is made specific by its religious or secular nature. The religiosity or secularness is determined by the icons immediate context. Whether or not the icon is in a church or on the Manitoba prairie is going to determine the context. What then is the intent of the icon? The intent of the religious icon is to encounter God, while the intent of the secular icon is to encounter an experience or emotion.

An icon is made specific by its status in a culture. How people interact with the icon—how they use it, physically place it within the community, and respond to it—effects the status within the culture. Specificity is added by the ritual that surrounds the icon. Rituals such as pilgrimages and dedication ceremonies distinguish an icon. Regular pilgrimages occur due to interest, social reasons or requirements and a desire to experience something. Dedication ceremonies do not occur regularly but the need to bless or give a blessing to an object does occur regularly. While a dedication ceremony only happens at the start or opening of a project, such a blessing act can occur in less formal occasions such as visiting the icon or telling friends about it.

In this thesis, image refers to the general terms for visual art reproductions. Orthodox icon painters believe they are painting God, but rather the images of real people, including Christ, who provide a means for connecting with God. The terms image and icon will be used accordingly in this thesis.

The arguments for and against icons are steeped in the Old and New Testament scriptures. Image opposers, such as Ulrich Zwingli and Andreas Karlstadt, cite the second Commandment with its argument at the forefront. Those who argue against images in the church cite scripture that supports the second commandment as a separate commandment, and one that condemns the worship of any image.

Exodus 20: 4-6 reads, You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,… If one makes an idol in any shape or form, one is breaking the second commandment. Additionally, one who makes an image is moving further and further away from God.

God rejects being confined to a two- or three- dimensional visual image because God is more than an image. God is emotive, and hears, feels, thinks, and sees. An image implies God is unemotive and lacks keen senses that allow God to make connections with humans. Worshipping an image creates a false theology. How can one study and learn about God if one is only viewing an emotionless aspect of God? One is not experiencing the true emotive God if one worships an image of God. They are only experiencing part of who God is. Wanting to encounter God people turned to scripture and verbal images to describe God. Scripture that indicates how God does reveal God’s self to us is cited as the proper means of learning from and about God. We are to listen for God’s voice and learn from God’s words and not from images.

For image supporters such as Johann Eck and Hieronymous Emser, the Ten Commandments do not oppose images in the church. In Exodus 20, verses four to six are a continuation of verse three and is not a separate commandment. Verses four to six reinforce the first commandment discouraging one from worshiping foreign gods. Because Christ was made in

the image of God and revealed to us through the virgin birth, images do not break the commandments. Those in favor of images in the church argue that God sent Jesus as an image of God’s self, therefor, creating an image of who God is. Since God has sent an image, then that image, Jesus, can be used in the church to aid worship.

The following chapter outlines the arguments of two distinct religious groups, one Orthodox and one Protestant. One uses images in the church, and one has prohibited images in the church.

The Eastern Orthodox Church or the Byzantine Church are the names given to the church established in the east. From that overarching church, regional churches, including the Greek Orthodox Church and Russian Orthodox Church, were established.

The Eastern Orthodox Church emerged as the church in the east around 400 A.D. It gained greater prominence after the 1054 split with the Roman Catholic Church in the west. The split between the two churches occurred over several issues, one being the source of the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox Church believes that the Holy Spirit derives from God, via Jesus, the Son. The Holy Spirit is a gift from God given to the people via Jesus. The Catholic Church believes the Holy Spirit is a separate entity with God the Father and Jesus, the son. The Holy Spirit comes by spirituation from both God and Jesus. The issue was resolved when both churches excommunicated each other.

Icons invite people to prayer, to contemplation, and to self reflection both in the church and at home. Located both individually and collectively in the church, parishioners kneel to pray and light candles before icons. The iconostasis literally means a picture stand. It separates the nave from the sanctuary in Orthodox churches and is decorated with icons. A high wall reaching the ceiling covered with four or five rows of icons, an iconostasis completely isolates the priest from the congregation. The iconostasis represents both the physical and spiritual world and is manifested in the connection between the Eucharist and the icon—Christ’s transfigured body. At home, icons play an important role in Eastern Orthodox spirituality. On entering an Orthodox home, icons act as a greeting. Honored on a wall,

the icons extend an invitation to lift ones heart toward heaven.

In the eighth and ninth centuries, two organized movements against images in the church existed. The first iconoclasm, or image breaking, period started in 726 by Emperor Leo III and lasted for sixty-one years. Individuals who valued the practice of icons, iconodules, battled against those who opposed their practice, iconoclasts. Iconoclasts argued that icons created a visible image of God and violated the second commandment. Images of God are prohibited in the Old Testament, and in doing so, one commits idolatry. Additionally, images of God and their worship countered the Christian idea of God being all powerful, independent and ruler of all creation. "To give God a visible form was not permissible, it was even directly blasphemous, because it would diminish his majesty." Iconodules, however, argued that the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ created a precedence. By becoming human through Jesus, the limitless and unobtainable God created an images of the divine.

St. John of Damascus agreed with both arguments. First, he asked, "How can the invisible be depicted? How does one picture the inconceivable? How can one draw what is limited, immeasurable, infinite?" But concluded by saying, "I have seen God in human form, and my soul was saved…In former times God, who is without form or body, would never be depicted. But now when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I made an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter; I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake, who willed to take his abode in matter; who worked out my salvation through matter."

The first movement was resolved in 787 when the second Council of Nicaea declared icons reverent. The Ecumenical Council upheld St. John of Damascus’ conclusion and reinstated icons in worship. The council stated, "Next to the sign of the precious and life-giving cross, venerable and holy icons—made of colours, pebbles, or any other material that is fitting—may be set in the holy church of God on holy utensils and vestments, on walls and boards, in houses and in streets."

The second iconoclasm period started in 814 and lasted for twenty-nine years. The period ended with the death of the emperor who imposed the movement. After his death his wife restored icon veneration. After great consideration, the empress, Theodora II, icon worship was reinstated and fighting ceased. The Orthodox Church celebrates the end of this iconoclasm movement, 11 March 843, with a holiday feast that continues today.

To think theologically about icons, we need to ask two questions; What do icons reveal about God? and, What are icons based on? Icons reveal three characteristics of who God is. God is accessible via icons. While God is traditionally and culturally available in the church, God can be found in other locations. Icons are located on the entrance wall, and there are even portable wallet icons. Icons reveal that God is present everywhere, and God can be found and accessed not only in church and home but in all points of life. Revelation is not dictated by church officials. God can be accessed by anyone. God becomes more personal via icons.

God takes on abstract form. An icon encounter is facilitated by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does something. It functions mysteriously, bringing one closer to God. Establishing a relationship with God allows one to know God more fully. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Holy Trinity and proceeds only from the Father. The Holy Spirit was not created by the Son, rather the Son, Jesus Christ, sends the Holy Spirit in time as stated in John 15:26. The Holy Spirit is a gift from Jesus to the church and is a promise from God intended to give spiritual gifts and virtues for Christian life. These gifts are given to humans by way of baptism. Not all Christian groups have an abstract concept of God.

Icons are God in art. Icons reveal a creative and alternative means to knowing God. In a religion focused on words and scriptural texts, icons offer a different expression of faith, a visual

medium. It becomes seeable religion. Icons suggest there is more than one way to express and have a relationship with God. God can be expressed through an entire palette of paint. God is not limited to black ink ordered into words in two columns on a page. God is not limited to twenty minutes of the spoken word on a Sunday morning. Icons suggest God can be revealed in more than one way. One of those ways is through visual images.

Icons are based on two components: doctrine and experience. Doctrine is what the church teaches and believes to be true. Scripture and the apostolic tradition hold the teachings and practices of the church which have been provided by God and Jesus Christ. God is creator of heaven and earth and sent Jesus Christ to die for our sins. In Orthodoxy, the Holy Spirit proceeds from God only, and is a gift sent from Jesus. During the Holy Eucharist the elements of bread and wine change into the blood and body of Christ. These core teachings are accessible through icons. That is part of the purpose of icons. The core teachings about God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Eucharist are based in scripture and church tradition making the content of icons. It is in conformity with the scriptures and church tradition that the iconographer works within permissible forms.

Icons are based on experience. When one encounters an icon hanging on the wall in a house or on a pedestal at church, she reacts to the icon. The reaction might be to walk past the icon. The experience was one of disengagement. If the reaction is to step in front of the icon and pray, the experience is one of engagement. One received the icon physically by studying it and praying before it. Re-occurring engagement might cause one to choose an icon and either go to it or bring it home. One can form a special connection to a specific scene or depiction which calls one. An engaged experience is tied to doctrine by way of the icon reflecting the Eastern

Orthodox Church doctrine. By engaging icons one is interacting with the doctrine of the church. One is praying and incensing the church regardless of one’s relationship to the church. Saintly icons, calendars, festival days and liturgical icons all represent the Orthodox Church. They are a part of the Orthodox tradition and are tied to doctrine.

The Late Middle Ages (1300-1500) were a time of change and transition. New worlds were discovered, technology, such as the printing press, was advancing, and an anti-Roman rule attitude was taking root. Economic and social change shifted as the peasants challenged the bourgeoisie. An agricultural crisis hit with famine, floods and bad weather and the Black Plague struck. Additionally, the people’s attitude toward the church and clergy shifted. People were unhappy with clergy and church leadership, and some went as far as to call the pope the anti-Christ. With famine, floods and the plague, people became preoccupied with the end times and sought spiritual and salvific remedies.

Fear of the end times and the need for salvation fueled the fire of images in the church. Salvation became the priority of many citizens and was sought in every way. Seeking more, people sought out honored relics. Great pilgrimages were made to cathedrals that, in turn, started to compete for visitors and the best relics. Zurich, Switzerland got caught up in the pilgrimage activity welcoming pilgrims and granting them the same spiritual benefits as Rome. The people of Zurich also set out on pilgrimages. They dedicated themselves to good works but also highly influenced the role and productivity of the arts. "To create a work of art for the Church, whether is was a monumental painting or an altar vessel, a statue or a Mass garment, was one way, and obviously a distinctive way, of working toward one’s salvation." The peoples’ need for reassurance and salvation as well as their growing disenchantment with church leadership elevated images to a new level.

Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) and Andreas Karlstadt (1480-1541) did not agree with the new elevation of images in the church. Zwingli, a parish priest in Zurich prior to the Reformation, came from the humanist movement and studied theology at Vienna, Basel and Bern. Karlstadt taught theology at Wittenberg where Martin Luther was his student. Karlstadt and Zwingli united over the issue of the Lord’s Supper, a non-transubstantiation position, and on their view of images in the church. Together they sought the removal of images from the church with arguments steeped in Old Testament scripture. Images in the church violate the second commandment and lead people away from God.

Zwingli based his arguments against images and idols in scripture. He cited thirty-seven passages from both the Old and New Testament that prohibit, mock and illustrate how to destroy images. He argued that, according to scripture, images and idols will lead people away from God. Zwingli wrote, "For whoever has sought help and confidence from a creature which the believer ought to seek only with God, has made a foreign god for himself." The foreign god is where one takes comfort, drawing one away from God.

God forbids images as stated in the second commandment (Ex. 20:3). If one has images one is not to honor them by bowing respectfully before them. Zwingli wrote, "[God] forbids here all manifestations of honor, so that one may not bow, genuflect, kneel, light candles or burn incense before them." If these images were in church then they were there to have been honored. Additionally, Christians have given images the names of wise and blessed people. Christians have painted wood and given them the names like "Mother of God," and "St. Nicholas." In doing so, the saints are dishonored.

Zwingli argued that images should not teach the people of God. The word of God should teach the people. If one is seeking God, one needs to seek the one and true God. God does not need a visual mediator. Zwingli wrote, "Is it not to rob Christ’s honor and give it to the creatures when in fact he has given to all of us a certain surety of salvation Ephesians 1? Yet you ascribe it to a creature. Is this not to turn people sour on God and to make them love a creature? What else is this but idol worship?" However, lazy priests have painted the word on the walls and, being deprived of the spoken word, the people have turned to the images. People sought from these images what they should be seeking from God. True faith is not painted on a wall but painted in one’s heart. "Therefore it must always follow that we also must learn that faith is necessary in our hearts if we want to do anything pleasing to God. This we cannot learn from walls but only from the gracious pulling of God out of his own word." Images do not create faithful living but lead to an outward weakness.

Images that cannot be mistaken for God are not forbidden. Solomon allowed the painting of cherubim’s and a palm tree in the temple (1 Kings 6:23). Additionally, embroidered cloths and menorahs were present. Zwingli argued that these images and decoration could not be Godly in nature. He wrote,

Therefore they should be removed. Everything in the church is holy and such objects should not be honored as to be in such a place.

Andreas Rudolf Bodenstein from Karlstadt, Germany provided several writings on the issue of images in the church. In 1522, Karlstadt wrote a tract while in Wittenburg, Germany and responded to Hiernoymous Emser and Johann Eck who supported the use of images in published tracts. Karlstadt sought the removal of images because they can be harmful to those with an uncertain heart. He used the Biblical text to support his argument. Karlstadt wrote to the Count of Passau informing him of a congregation that celebrated mass together, removed the images and idols from their altars, walls and ceilings and fed the poor people. In the tract, Karlstadt sought to illustrate "the Councils honorable and noteworthy undertaking is upright and godly and one which all Christians should emulate, honor and praise." Karlstadt states his purpose and position clearly.

To have carved or painting idols upon altars is more harmful and devilish still.

The placement of images and idols on the altar causes further alarm. The only way to prevent

people from breaking the commandment is to remove the images based on scripture.

Karlstadt argues that images are an abomination to God because humans represent to God what they love. If humans love or show love to images, then, humans are an abomination in God’s eyes. According to Karlstadt, the temple should be called dens of murderers as one’s spirit dies and is destroyed. Solomon wrote that the Lord’s house enables God to watch over the servant and take the requests offered up. Karlstadt interpreted these words as meaning God is the only one to be worshiped and called upon.

One must honor only God, not just anyone or anything. When God led the Israelites out of Egypt and freed them from slavery they built a golden calf honoring God, in Moses’ absence. Moses was gone so long that the Israelites thoughts he has disappeared. The calf acted as a visual reminder of the presence of a deity. The golden calf did not lead them out of Egypt (Ex. 32:4). The Israelites, however, said it did and created a false image of God. God prohibits images and idols (Ex. 20:4). God stated that one should not worship or honor idols in the form of heaven, earth or water. God is jealous and will punish the generations who reject God; one should not honor idols. Karlstadt interprets these words literally: "One should not worship, kneel before or illuminate an image."

Karlstadt further argues that icons and images are not to be placed on altars. Altars are to be used to praise God’s name and make sacrifices to God. When icons are placed on altars they take on the special significance of praising God’s name and sacrifices to God. According to Karlstadt, icons do not deserve this significance. Whatever is placed on an altar honors God due to the significance applied to the altar. Placing saintly images on altars is more severe than hanging them on the wall.

In good conscience, Karlstadt could not advise someone to pray on a decorated and ornate crucifix, as the images do not bring the individual closer to God. He wrote,

Images of Christ perpetuate a shallow teaching of Christ. They teach about the physicality and life of Christ. Karlstadt sought a deeper teaching of Christ, one that taught the spirituality and salvation of Christ; that cannot happen with images. Images offer no comfort. According to Karlstadt, only the word of God is justified. For Karlstadt, the spoken word, specifically those spoken by Jesus Christ on the cross, are justified words professing wholeness and salvation. Karlstadt continues to make the argument against images by posing the following question scenario; "Now I ask you, if you were to really hate and dislike a picture with all your heart, so that you could not bear to see or hear of it, how would you like it if someone insisted on getting to know and honor you through such a hated, horrible book?" The images used by others to understand and get to know God is only one dimension of God, one that God hates and flees. Karlstadt refutes the argument that images and icons are like books from which we are to learn. Some profess images to be the books of lay people. Karlstadt argued that when the Lord is raised up, people would destroy and flee their images.

Hieronymous Emser and Johann Eck supported the use of images in the church.

Together they sought to maintain images in the church by arguing that images are not a violation of the first commandment. They also stimulate devotion. Emser (1478-1527) responded to Karlstadt’s book advocating the removal of images. He interprets Exodus 20:4-6 as sub-comments to verse 3. The comments are not separate commandments. According to Emser, Exodus 20:4-6 "is nothing more than an elaboration and explanation of the first commandment, namely that we should not worship alien gods. It is not forbidden to us to paint or carve images and to venerate and worship them, except those we worship as idols."

Emser cited ten reasons why images should be in the church and receive veneration.

1. Romans 1:19-20 understand the invisible through the visible,
2. Images serve as a reminder,
3. They serve as stimulation for a life of devotion,
4. God and the saints will be greatly honored by the people if they are seen daily,
5. Being seen daily the people will more frequently serve and offer thanks to God,
6. The more people are devoted to the saints the more people will pray,
7. Prayer by the saints will help people gain the end reward,
8. Images in churches help to distinguish the buildings from other buildings,
9. Christians do not honor their images as "living things or gods" but as ‘types and signs of God and his beloved saints."
10. The images of saints serve as a reminder of their great lives.

For Emser, images help people who are unable to read or attend church and are an extension of the church. The physical presence of images acts as a signifier to people giving them the opportunity to engage God.

Johann Eck’s (1486-1543) article On Not Removing Images of Christ and the Saints was addressed to the Bishop of Bixen and dated March 1522 from Ingolstadt, Germany. Eck cited seventeen logical arguments for maintaining images in the church.

1. Through the incarnation of Christ the invisible God was made visible.
2. Christ created the first image, therefore validating the use of such images in church.
3. Images were given to people by the apostles and St. Luke.
4. Eusebius, Augustine, Jerome and Ambrose include the use of images in their writings and make them a costume of the church.
5. Images help instruct the laity and direct them to the saints.
6. Images help people remember Christ.
7. Images receive praise because they "challenge the faithful to imitation…They invite and challenge the faithful to live chastely, piously, and in a truly Christian way in imitation of what they see"
8. Images aid devotion.

Points 9-15 take a historical look at images and those who oppose them.

16) Eck returned to Biblical arguments for not removing images.

17) Images of the serpent (Numbers 21:8) does not argue against images but for images.

18) The painter is not to blame for the images being worshipped.

Emser and Eck based their argument on the people’s need for spiritual comfort and salvation. As students of theology, they respected scripture but focused more on the rewards and long term influences of images than on the word. The physical presence of images acts as a reminder for the people.

For Emser and Eck, images were the spiritual and salvific "post-it notes" of the sixteenth-century. Seeing the images, people will remember to pray and honor icons, providing a sense of spiritual comfort and salvation. They represent a catophatic tradition that engages the full use of images. Images remind, stimulate, and honor within a religious context and help one encounter God. Zwingli and Karlstadt represent an apophatic tradition that is less material and focuses on the inner revelation of God. They engage God by hearing the word instead of seeing the word.

The word of God can be proclaimed several ways. Two such ways are the spoken word and the visual word. The spoken word, supported by Zwingli and Karlstadt is transitory. It is heard and then it disappears. It does not sustain long enough for one to contemplate it. The visual word, manifested in visual art, maintains. It stays intact so one can contemplate it. It is a concrete, physical object that is not going to go anywhere. In doing so, the visual word, supported by Emser and Eck, can be studied, reflected upon, and reinterpreted through reproductions.

The windmill shares characteristics with the catophatic tradition. It is an image, and more importantly an icon that reminds one of an experience and stimulates a response. Due to its physical presence, the windmill is non-ephemeral—it stays intact and allows for contemplation.

Before discussing the Mennonites and their perspective on art, we need to briefly discuss the pietists. Conservative Mennonites are not alone in their beliefs against worldly possessions and images in the church. Pietism is a devotional form of practice stemming from the time of Orthodoxy within the European Reformed and Luthren churches.

Pietists illustrated their faith through words, and in many cases in the form of non-conformity. They refrain from dancing, playing cards, attending the theatre, reading worldly literature and sometimes alcoholic beverages. If one refrained from the art forms of dance, fiction and drama, one can deduce that the visual arts were not allowed.

Philipp Jakob Spener (1635-1705) was a main leader of the movement within the Luthren Church. He was an active minister in Germany and emphasized Bible study, spiritual laymen and preaching reform, and theological study. Pietist characteristics were integrated into various Protestant groups. Mennonites in the Netherlands and Northern Germany had contact with pietist leaders. As a movement leader, Pieter Pietersz's devotional writings were being used before the movement was introduced. Prussian Mennonites were affected by Moravian pietism, especially along the Vistula River. Wuerttenberg Pietism influenced South German Mennonites causing a new church formation. Mennonites in Russia were influenced by the Baptist wave of pietism as well as Mennonites in Prussia and Poland. Both the Moravian and the Wuerttenberg pietism affected Russian Mennonites in the nineteenth-century. Eduard Wuest, a pietist supporter, worked as an Evangelical pastor close to the Molotchnaya settlement.

Pietism, emphasizing a devotional life and a personal communion with God, calls one to focus more on having and maintaining an inner more apophatic epistemology. Pietists connect with God and Christ inwardly and place less emphasis on materialization's of God. A catophatic epistemology positively affirms God place in divine revelations and offers a concrete way of knowing God.

Harold S. Bender writes, "The Anabaptist-Mennonites, as more closely related to the Zwinglian-Calvinist phase of the Reformation than to the Lutherans, shared with the former their objection to the use of art in religious worship or in religious activity in any form. With their emphasis upon simplicity, sincerity, and humility, art seemed to them artificial and pretentious, often dangerous and wasteful." Mennonites, specifically those from West Prussia and Switzerland and later their descendents, argued against images in the church citing the second commandment and God’s words forbidding images.

In general, Mennonites believe in simplicity; art in the church is ostentatious. Their attitude toward art stemmed from two sources. First, as simple people, Mennonites followed Ulrich Zwingli's dislike for the use of art in worship and church events. Mennonites focused on honesty and humility and wanted a large margin between themselves and corrupt useless art. Their second source was the second commandment, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." Art was considered dangerous when it focused on humans and material objects rather than glorifying God, implying art focused on God's creation was acceptable. If the art was evil then the artist creating it must also be evil. Art used in the church prevented Mennonites from seeing and appreciating art. Statues and graven images filling the church, and rooms meant for worshipleft Mennonites unsettled. They so disliked the image-filled rooms they were unable to see the advantages of art in any form. They were unable to understand art and the church working together.

While Mennonites in general did not bring art pieces into the church to aid worship, one

group did bring visual art into their culture. The Dutch-Prussian Mennonites, and more specifically the Waterlander’s offer a different perspective on worldly possessions than the Swiss-Mennonites. Settling in the Netherlands in the 1500’s, the Dutch Mennonites were more progressive than other Anabaptist groups. They were more liberal and less tied to clothing and church government traditions than other more conservative Mennonite groups. Led by Hans de Ries, the Waterlanders did not close themselves off from the world. Members could hold political offices. Individuals with an artistic talent, such as Joost van den Vondel, were welcome. He was a poet and dramatist, and served as a deacon in the Amsterdam Waterlander congregation. The Waterlanders openness to visual art was further manifested in commissioned portraits, an increase in Mennonite artists and art collections in homes of wealthy Mennonites. The enjoyment of the visual arts entered the church in a functional capacity by way of communion cups. Usually the communion ware was a pewter jug and plate but one congregation had a silver set.

The Waterlander perspective towards art is unique and does not encompass all Mennonites. Those from Holland, northern Germany and the Palatinate were more in favor of visual arts while America Old Order Amish and Russian Mennonites with Mexican or Paraguayan background were less on favor of visual arts. Their openness to the world and the visual arts did not break down the barriers for Mennonite artists.

One piece of religious art composed by a Mennonite elder and later illustrated by a Dutch Mennonite artist did break the barrier for Mennonites. The Martyr’s Mirror centers around martyrdom stories and testimonies. Thielmand Jansz van Braght (1625-1664) first published the 1290 page book in 1660. His goal was to inspire the members of his congregation in their faith by sharing the incredible stories of loyalty towards God. Van Braght was concerned that Mennonites were getting too rich and lazy towards their faith commitments. The large book is divided into two sections beginning with the martyrdom of Christians to 1500 AD. The second section focused on Anabaptists and Mennonite martyrs. It mainly focuses on Dutch, Prussian and Russian Mennonites over Swiss and South German Anabaptists and Mennonites. However, the stories of Felix Mantz and Michael Sutter, prominent Swiss and South Germans, are included.

Dutch Mennonite artists Jan Luyken (1649-1712) created 104 illustrations for a second edition published in 1685. The copper etchings Luyken produced served as visual reminders of persecution horrors. Anabaptists and Mennonites were attracted to the Martyr’s Mirror. In 1748 Pennsylvania Mennonites had it translated into German. French translations were published later. An English version was published in the 1800’s and is still in print today.

Initially, the illustrations in the Martyr’s Mirror are not overtly religious. They appear as gruesome death-filled sketches. One has to read the story and know the context in order to see the copper etchings as a piece of religious art. Van Braght creates the written context and puts words to such stories as the story of Dirk Willems, an Anabaptist who was convicted and sent to jail. Having escaped, he runs across an ice covered pond, only to have his pursuer fall through the ice. Willems turns back and rescues him only to be recaptured by his ungrateful pursuer.

Luyken provides a visual image to accompany the story and complements the context. Willems, is leaning forward with his arms outstretched toward the fallen and helpless pursuer.

Submerged, Willems pursuer reaches out toward the helping hands. His hat is floating away and his hair is wet. One the shore, three fellow pursuers stand helpless and amazed at the site on the opposite shore. The arms of a windmill appear in the distance.

Van Braght writes, "Read it again and again, above all, fix your eyes upon the martyrs themselves…and follow their example." He invites the reader to study both the written martyrs and the visual martyrs. Both can be engaged. Both can be tools of learning about Christian, Anabaptist and Mennonite history. The Martyr’s Mirror is one piece of literary and visual art that has found its way into Mennonite homes. Its placement in Mennonite homes helped and continues to help break down barriers of artistic resistance.

What Mennonite artists painted was also an issue. In the late 1800s and early 1900s few two- and three-dimensional works by Dutch Prussian Mennonite artists centered their work around Mennonite themes or history. Few artists ventured away from the acceptable colony landscapes and architectural paintings. Mennonites artists were encouraged to paint more secular art, such as farm and village scenes. Mennonite arts were encourages to paint nonreligious art, such as farms and village scenes. This raises the possibility that Mennonite artists heightened the aesthetic sensibilities of other Mennonites to the significance of secular imagery found in their daily life. The social and agricultural impact of these images began to shape the imagination of future generations. Could the secular icon have been created as a response to the prohibition of religious icons and other religious images?

Chapter 3: A Landscape of Russian Mennonite History

Painting a landscape gives a perspective of a natural setting. The Russian Mennonite landscape is rural dotted with churches, schools, farms, and machine factories. It is also dotted with windmills rising tall on the flat steppe and arms turning in the wind. Before we examine the arms of the windmill as a secular icon, the Russian Mennonite landscape needs to be navigated. How did the Mennonites come to live in Russia? Where did they settle and why? What was the culture of the Russian Mennonites and how did it manifest itself in village life? The Russian Mennonite experience

In 1762-63 Catherine II invited Germans and other Europeans to immigrate to Southern Russia. Catherine, a German herself, needed to populate the area in order to secure possession after taking the land from the Turks. Mennonites did not move until the 1780s because they were not interested in the opportunity to own land, but rather, in the opportunity to leave Prussia. Mennonites in Prussia were bothered by the increase in military populations stemming from political problems in France, and faced military and church taxes based on land ownership. The Mennonites did not pay either tax and, since they owned approximately 300,000 acres, the state found it difficult to pay for military and state church activities. The government attempted to solve the problem by prohibiting Mennonites from purchasing more land, thus hindering the livelihood of Mennonites with large families.

In 1786 George Trappe, a representative of Catherine II, received a warm welcome when he visited Mennonite communities. Trappe provided exciting reports of the available lands in Russia, and the Mennonites liked what he reported. Russian colonial policies required foreign immigrants to live completely separate from native Russians. This policy allowed the Mennonites the same religious and educational freedoms they had in Prussia. They were not required to serve in the military, were known to be good farmers, and were granted permission by the government to brew beer, ferment vinegar and distill brandy.

In 1789 the Chortitza Colony, located on the Chortitza River, became the first Mennonite colony established in the Ukraine and consisted of approximately 400 families. The colony's early years were hard due to disease, heavy rains, and lack of wood for construction. Money promised to each family from the government was also delayed. However, the Mennonite colony persevered and by 1800, the 400 families had established fifteen villages and farmed 89,100 acres of land. With little interference from the government, the Mennonites established schools and taught religion and catechism classes. Teachers were chosen randomly by community leaders and, since the main occupation was farming, the children were often needed at home.

In 1798, available land was discovered close to Chortitza. In 1804 the Molotchnaya colony was established approximately 100 miles southeast of Chortitza. The Prussian government finally realized they were losing good citizens to Russia. In an attempt to slow down immigration, Prussia eased land and tax restrictions and implemented a ten- percent tax on emigrants leaving Prussia. Prussia's plan slowed down immigration but it did not stop it completely. By 1835, 1,200 families had moved to the Molotchnaya colony, settled in fifty-eight villages and farmed 324,000 acres of land. The second movement provided more teachers, ministers and community leaders resulting in an even more prosperous colony.

By 1859 the population had grown from 10,000 to 34,500 with little land acquisition. Some landowners rented out their land or bought estates and worked large farms. The government mandated the original 176 acre plots-per-family were not to be subdivided. As a result, families who were unable to purchase land became second class citizens. The landless were given a plot of land outside of town and were known as Anwohner (marginal people). The landowners were called Wirte (landlords). The landless had no voting rights but were required to pay taxes. By 1865, the Molotchnaya colony was inhabited by 1,384 Wirte citizens and 2,356 Anwohner citizens.

Out of fear and desperation stemming from government threats, the Chortitza and Molotchnaya colonies started a program to raise money for the purchase of land in other areas. These "Daughter Colonies" provided land for the landless and the young people in the community. Occupants were allowed ten years to pay for the land and the money went toward the purchase of more land. In 1835, Bergthal was the first such colony established. By 1900 forty more colonies were founded.

In 1866 Russian reformation measures caused changes in Mennonite life. They were required to keep records and formal documents in Russian and pay tax toward government-run organizations in addition to their own. The balance of power was also threatened when the landless received government freedoms. The biggest threat came when spoken and written Russian was required in all the schools, and Russian teachers replaced unqualified Mennonite teachers. Between 1871 and 1873 the Mennonites sent five delegates to St. Petersburg in an attempt to curb the universal military service law and receive their old privileges. The Imperial Council granted their request for alternative service but for some Mennonites this was still a problem. Seeing this as a threat to their faith, many Mennonites decided to leave. Approximately 18,000 immigrated west to Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota and Pennsylvania in the United States and southern Manitoba, Canada.

Those that stayed behind became more involved in their communities once language was no longer a barrier. Friendships and business relationships grew. Mennonite hospitals cared for non-Mennonite patients. Many Russian workers found employment on Mennonite farms. Interested in understanding the soul of Russia, many Mennonites read Russian literature and history.

The culture of the Russian Mennonites manifested itself in the determination of establishing a new homeland. The need to succeed in Russia was as great as the stubbornness to succeed. Along with the stubbornness was the leadership and the knowledge from within. Johann Cornies was influential on both the Chortitza and Molotchnaya colonies and helped establish schools and agricultural systems. These are just two of the three key manifestations of Mennonite culture.

The importance of religion and church life illustrates key cultural aspects. The first church service in the Chortitza colony was held in an old dissolute windmill. Quickly donations of wood and money were given and a new church building was built. Larger villages built their own churches while smaller villages met in school classrooms. While enroute to the colonies, male members within the group performed religious tasks such as devotionals and Bible readings. Upon arrival in Russia, an elder was called and ordained into the leadership position in the church or Lehrers . The Lehrer and the Ältester, who oversaw the ministers, worked together to direct and teach the congregation. Together with the deacons, the Lehrer and the Ältester formed the Lehrdienst and provided direction for the congregation. Baptisms were held during Pentecost. Prayer meetings were called for various purposes including safe immigration and famine relief.

The Chortitza Mennonite church was plain in appearance and made of clay bricks. N.J. Kroeker writes, "Not only did the external appearance strike us as being extraordinarily plain, the interior also lacked ornamentation." He stated that the building aesthetics bore no impact on the message or proclamation inside from an elevated pulpit, and the hard backless benches met the needs of all members. A wood burning stove provided heat, and extra seating was available in the three-sided spindled balcony.

Mennonite congregations had a strong musical tradition. Congregations were led by the Vorsaenger or song leader, who usually had a strong voice as the congregation sang without accompaniment. Music and song was also apart of school life as young people were taught and

memorized music in school. Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost called for three days of church with church on the first and second days and visiting on the third. Singing was a major part of the worship during these liturgical times of the year. The church choir did not sing every Sunday but on special occasions, and sometimes solos or duets were added. Singing was not confined to just church or morning worship. In addition to church, people sang at weddings, funerals, birthday parties and special visitors were often treated and honored with a song.

Mennonites in Russia established a sophisticated educational system offering primary and secondary schooling with the German language and religion at the center. Independent from the Russian government, Mennonites were free to establish a system to suit their needs. They were granted permission by the Russian government to operate their own schools and preoccupied with other issues, the Russian government paid little attention to Mennonite educational practices.

The schools were established by either an educational organization or by a prosperous individual. Until money was provided to build a school, students and teachers met in random locations for instructions. Sometimes several villages met together, however, most villages had their own schools.

The first teachers were farmers, who worked as teachers during the winter and managed their farms. Craftsmen also taught, working on their trade and teaching. Some early teachers included Lutherans who stayed on in the Molotchnaya village until 1820 and other non-Mennonites who traveled through the villages learning various trades along the way. However, Mennonite schools tried to only employ Mennonite teachers. Teaching was primarily done by men but some women did teach. During the schools existence here were 570 Mennonite teachers and seventy of them were women.

Mennonites strongly believed it was the parental duty to provide their children with an elementary education. But work on the farm was also a priority. The elementary school offered a seven-year program with children generally dropping out to work on the farm around the fifth or sixth grade. Subjects taught in the Mennonite elementary schools were reading, writing, math and religion. Hymns and the Ten Commandments were memorized while handwriting and illuminated writing were emphasized. Classes were taught in German. Russian was not used or taught until 1866 when it became mandatory. All schools were church schools as religion was the central focus, and the Bible a central book in elementary schools.

Students were divided into three groups; Fibular (lower grade), Testamentler (middle grade) and the Bibler (upper grade). Acknowledged by the Russian government, the religiosity of the Mennonite schools was secured even after the schools were taken over my Russian authority.

While the Russian government permitted Mennonite schools and religious content, they did not effect the direction of the schools. The church elders and preachers saw to it that the religious and spiritual nature of the schools were preserved via study materials and languages while the teachers and community lay-people directly supervised school activities and content decisions.

The need for teachers to fill Mennonite classrooms created the need for secondary education. Early teachers were self-taught men from the community. An apprentice system was established and young men interested in teaching worked alongside teachers during the winter and took classes in the summer. The apprentice system, while temporarily filling a need, did not solve the teaching problem. In 1822 the first teaching preparatory school was established and three more schools were quickly created to form what was known as Zentralschulen, or secondary school. The Zentralschulen offered a four-year program with two two-year classes, for ages thirteen to eighteen. German language instruction was taught, and Russian was eventually added, but not used to teach German or religion. Most secondary schools were for boys but both the Halbstadt and the Chortitza colonies established secondary schools for girls. Some schools were co-educational. Twenty-five secondary school were created. Nineteen were boys only, four were girls only and two were co-ed.

The third cultural manifestation of the Mennonites is the agricultural system they established. Combining livestock, crop and orchard farming, the Mennonites in southern Russian took the poor land they were given and turned it into a successful and educational business.

When the Mennonites arrived in Russia in 1789 and 1804 land conditions favored livestock farming over crop farming. Sheep breeding became popular with suitable land and available sheep. Wool was in demand and became profitable during the sheep boom in 1836. The majority of families had a spinning wheel and used it to make yarn or weave cloth to make their own clothes. Competing imported wool and an increase in grain crops in the Ukraine started the decline of the sheep and wool trade. Cattle breeding continued longer then sheep. Immigrants brought cattle with them and cross-breed them with local breeds to speed up the adjustment process. Seeds and saplings were supplied to Mennonites in the colonies helping to support forestation. The trees offered shade, shelter and a fuel source. Orchards became popular, especially mulberry trees which were economical. Young Mennonite girls spun the threads of the silk moths caterpillar cocoon into yarn.

The establishment of the Agricultural Association, with Johann Cornies as life-time chair, changed the farm life of Mennonite settlements. Immigrants to Russia sought to establish their own farms even though they were not farmers in Prussia. James Urry writes, "… the majority of Mennonites in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were farmers and farming came to be seen as the proper occupation of a simple Christian people attempting to remain aloof from the ‘world.’ The Mennonites thus found a comfortable niche in a multi-ethnic environment and a position in a highly ranked society—they were independent farmers, artisans, and merchants." Prior to immigration, Mennonites worked as weavers, tailors, carpenters, builders, smiths, shoemakers, clockmakers, and some as farmers. After immigration, farming appealed to more Mennonites, and some worked on their trade and farmed. The Agricultural Association demonstrated successful methods of raising animal herds and crop farming such as summer fallow, fall plowing and rotating crops. This laid the foundation for successful farming in Russia. As their farming success grew so did the inclusion of neighboring villages, often non-Mennonite, to glean farming advice.

In 1850, an agricultural shift occurred. Sheep and cattle farming decreased along with flax, tobacco crops and the silk industry. Thirty percent of the land was plowed, and thirty percent of the crops were wheat. Grain was increasingly in demand across western Europe. Farmers were acquiring more land and using the majority to farm bread grains. Commercialization soon came into play with an increased amount of grain being sold at market rather than being used at home.

By 1880, wheat was the prime crop. The majority of summer wheat was farmed by Mennonites. Later, winter wheat gained dominance. Mennonite winter wheat caught the attention of farmers in other countries because it did not rust, survived hard winters, and was good for baking. Around 1850, the popularity of the winter wheat, the collection of Mennonites, and available seaports made southern Russia the breadbasket of Europe. To support the increased wheat demand, Mennonites set out to supply their own farm machines. The first implement factory was built in 1860 in Chortitza by Peter Lepp. Plows, drills, mowers and threshing machines were made by Mennonites and sold to Mennonites.

Another result of the wheat demand was the milling industry. More windmills were built in villages and others were converted to faster production methods such as steam to meet the demand. Within all the Mennonite colonies, industrialization thrived. By the early 1900s, seventy large steampowered flour mills existed, and factories produced 15,000 mowers and 10,000 plows. Six percent of Russia's industrial production was produced by the Mennonites. The industrial wealth was owned by three percent of the people. The Mennonites benefited from the money they generated. Some wealthy Mennonites traveled, studied and socialized with Russian elite while supporting educational institutions and hospitals in the colonies.

Mennonite crops were prominent and in demand across Europe but these prosperous years of agriculture and farming came to an end with the 1917 Russian Revolution, Civil War, and disease. Between November 1919 and April 1920, a severe typhus epidemic erupted. The Mennonites were hit hard and more than 1,000 people died in the Mennonite colonies alone. After the revolution a devastating famine hit the newly formed Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR). Millions of Russians and, among them Mennonites starved to death. Frustrated with the lack of global aid, the Mennonites sent four men to North America to seek aid from Mennonite churches. In response to the cry for help, the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) was organized in 1920, and aid was sent to the Mennonites in Russia. Approximately 2,200 Mennonites died during this time due to war, starvation and disease. During their visit to North America, the four men, who had been sent for help, looked for land possibilities in Canada.

Ethical freedom could not be achieved in the new Russia, and Mennonites started to think about emigrating. By 1922, emigration plans to Canada were underway, and by 1923 immigrants were traveling to join the 1870s immigrants. The Soviets thought the Mennonites were leaving because they refused to submit to the Bolshevik power; however, they left for different reasons. First, the agricultural model had been destroyed, ruining the economy and social forces. Second, the new government continued to make an issue out of the Mennonites' belief in nonresistance and their attitude toward military service.

The Mennonites who stayed in Russia worked to put their communities back together. An agricultural group was organized and helped to voice farming concerns. However, many still wanted to leave and hoped to return to Germany. In 1929, 13,000 Mennonites traveled to Moscow but only 5,677 arrived in Germany. From Germany they traveled to Canada and South America. The depression and unemployment slowed the Canadian and German visa processes, preventing more Mennonites from leaving. Roughly 600 Mennonites escaped east to China traveling to Paraguay and the United States. When emigration was stopped in 1930, 20,201 Mennonites had left or were in transit to Canada.

When the Prussian Mennonites arrived in southern Russian, the landscape was barren. The canvas was blank. Mennonites started colonies and villages. In those villages, church buildings interrupted the horizon and school bells rang out. Surrounding the villages, farm yards were built and sheep, then cattle grazed the land. Golden fields of wheat grew over the steepe and cattle on the landscape. The Mennonites took a blank canvas and planted a beautiful landscape of colorful opportunity and prosperity. It is time to paint the subject. The windmill is a part of the landscape painted by the Mennonites. It was a part of the village life and helped Russian Mennonites succeed in southern Russian.

Es klappert die Muhle am rauschenden Bach…

Bei Tag und bei Nacht ist der Muller stets wach…

Er mallet uns Korn zu dem kräftigen Brot,

Und haben wir dieses so hat’s keine Not.

Klip, klap, klip, klap, klip, klap.

Flink laufen die Rader und drehen den Stein…

Und mahlen den Weizen zu Mehl uns so fein…

Der Backer die Zwieback und Kuchen draus backt,

Klip, klap, klip, klap, klip, klap.

[Ernest Anschltz, ca. 1798-1850]

The Mill Clatters.

The mill clatters by the babbling creek

The miller is awake by day and by night

He mills corn into heft bread for us

And if we have this then we have no need

Klip, klap, klip, klap, klip, klap.

Quickly the wheels are running and turning the stone

And mills the wheat to flour for us so fine

Out of this the baker bakes buns and cakes for us

Klip, klap, klip, klap, klip, klap.

"The Mill Clatters" accents the windmill as the subject in the Russian Mennonite landscape. It verbalizes the painted composition. The poem highlights the role and status of the windmill in the community and of the miller, "if we have this [the miller and windmill] then we have no need." Together they grind grain into flour for the baking of buns and cakes.

Clattering away, windmills have existed and continue to be here and around the world for hundreds of years. Water and windmills expanded around the globe over a period of 2000 years. With their growth and demand came a wide variety of mill types and uses. Defined as a structure equipped with machinery capable of numerous technical tasks, the mill evolved as a

product of human industrialization. When early humans moved from a hunter and gatherer lifestyle, the need to grind grain into flour arose. Crushing the grain with a stone on a hard surface is thought to be the initial method, followed by grinding it between two stones by hand. Milling progressed to use animal power where animals were harnessed to a rod and guided by it in a circle. This method was used by humans until they learned how to capture wind or water power. Faster production and heavy grinding stones demanded more constant power. Watermills fulfilled that demand where water was available. Where water was not available, an alternative power source, wind, was used.

Where and when the first modern era water and windmills came into existence is unknown. Early watermills existed prior to Christ in approximately 120 BC. Some thesis documents claim that the oldest windmill existed in Egypt 3000 years ago.

European and American windmill origins are found in seventh-century Islamic society and regions. Arab geographic documents suggest the presence

of windmills 300 years earlier. In the tenth-century, Persian and Chinese drainage and irrigation

mills were created before grinding mills. Mills in India, China, and the Islamic world were used

to grind corn, pump water and crush sugar cane.

Moving west in the twelfth-century, European windmills were built and developed in various countries. Rental notes indicate the earliest windmill in Yorkshire, England and an 1180 document places windmills in France. In the fourteenth-century, windmills in Holland drained bodies of water and ground ochre, snuff, rice, cocoa, peppers, mustard seeds and cement. Other European windmills, the type brought to Canada and the United States, ground grain and corn.

In the sixteenth-century, sawmills were developed in Holland and eventually developed in England. Smock mills, a multiple sided mill with cap rotation and was thought to exist in the fifteenth-century, was developed in the seventeenth-century. But it was the windmill that the English and Dutch settlers brought to America in the seventeenth-century and built in Massachusetts and New York. In 1798 steam mills were built in London and in 1795 engine or steam powered mills existed in America. In the nineteenth-century, steam replaced windpower. At the beginning of the twentieth-century, over 10,000 mills existed in Germany.

The architectural goal of the windmill was to create a structure that would withstand the moving sails, rotating cap and large gear and windshaft. The term Hollander-style windmills include post, smock and tower mills. For stability, the smock and tower windmills were wider at the bottom and narrower at the top, providing more room on the bottom floors. The smock mill frame is made of eight large vertical beams the height of the towers and attached to the primary sill with a masonry foundation. Additional horizontal beams connected the posts and created the building’s central structure providing support via a criss-cross pattern. The framework was usually covered with clapboards and shingles. The French used a masonry construction, which prevented damage from harsh climate. Windows provided light and allowed the miller to know the wind direction and speed. Eastern Canadian windmills sided the frame structure and exterior with shingles and a bubble cap.

Grist mills and costume mills are generally the same. The miller owned the costume mills and was paid by taking a percentage of the grain ground. He did not buy or sell any grain. The merchant mill differed greatly as it ground grain, bought and sold flour, stored grain for sale and sometimes baked bread. The merchant mill owner was a wealthy individual employing a miller and various assistants to work in the mill.

A smock mill is a multi-sided wooden mill usually built on a brick foundation. A cap mounts the sails, fantail, and brake wheel. Only the cap rotates on a smock mill allowing the mill to be larger than other mills. Waterproofing a smock mill is problematic. Wind and rain find their way into openings and cause rotting damage. To help keep the windmill clean, some millers applied plaster between the vertical beams, rounding them and making it easier to sweep out. A smock mill has much more room than a post mill allowing different jobs to be done and the practical placement of machinery on different floors.

In a smock mill, the first two stories, usually made of brick, stored the grain and flour, and held the flour dresser and bins. Towards the top of the brick base is the gallery or exterior stage that accesses the sails. The third floor houses the major drive shafts, providing power for secondary machinery. The fourth floor houses the stones. The fifth flour holds large grain bins, which feed the hoppers that feed the stones. Open trapdoors in each floor allows grain to be hoisted and lowered from various floors.

A tower mill is laid out similarly to a smock mill with machinery on different floors. Tower mills are very roomy and can be built up to eighty feet tall. In some areas, the lower floors of the windmill are needed as the miller’s home. Windmills, like other buildings, are made from available materials. Common materials include brick, stone, and tarred tiles. Windows, sometimes one on top of another, strengthen the structure with its uninterrupted brick walls. However, some designers built mills with windows in a spiral determining the stacked windows a weakness in the structure.

Grinding process

Three distinct parts make up the wheat kernel. The endosperm, the bran covering the endosperm, and the germ are positioned at the one end. It is the endosperm that produces white four. The simple goal in milling is to clean the grain and divide it into its various parts allowing the best flour to be made from the endosperm. Wind and watermills were used to grind several different products. The mill was used to mill grain, press oil from seeds and olives, thresh grain, separate rice and barley, make tree bark into tanning material, saw wood, and produce paper. The mill was also used to cut tobacco and pound snuff, mixing fertilizer from seaweed, and pump away excess water and into irrigation systems.

Sacks of wheat were dropped off and weighed by the miller. From the weight, the miller took his share. The wheat was then stored in a large hopper until ground. When it was time, the grain was taken to the top floor and a rotating screen broke down clumps of grain. A revolving drum or smutter then cleaned the grain. The dirt and twigs were removed while the kernel remained. After the grain was cleaned it remained in a storage bin prior to going to the millstone. After grinding, the flour mixture was taken by an elevator to the hopperboy where it was cooled. From the hopperboy, the flour was separated from the mixture by the bolting reel—a series of gauges that screened the flour. After the last separation was finished the flour was bagged in stenciled sacks and returned to the customer.

The windmill was made up of various parts all of which were important in the flour making process. However, it was the function of three distinct parts that were integral. The cap allows the sails to move in the direction of the wind. In tower mills, the cap and sails rotated on a track at the top of the tower. The rotation could be accomplished two ways: by a hoist extending from the cap or by a pole projecting from the cap to the ground on an angle. A fantail mechanism extended from the back of some caps allowing them to turn automatically catching the wind at the best angle. Ontario tower mills had dome or hipped caps. Many caps had small gables where the windshaft entered the mill at the front. Wooded shingles covered wooded boards creating the cap structure.

A windmill usually had four sails connect in the center which were then connected to the windshaft. The sail connection joins the cap and transfered power from the sails to the gears and millstone inside. Well-built sails took accurate craftsmanship. A good mill could run on less wind than it takes to blow out a candle. The sails were not attached squarely but tilt backward to take advantage of the stronger wind and enable the sails to turn further away from the mill structure. The tilt of the sails allowed the cap to be small. In order to stop the sails a brake rope was pulled causing wooded braking blocks to press on the windshaft wheel stopping the sails. The stage or gallery (deck-like-structure) allowed the miller to stand and remove the sail clothes when the mill was not in use. In some cases, the sails almost reached the ground. Millers and farmers had to be careful to avoid serious injury. Children were warned not to walk or play near a running windmill.

A millstone was needed to run a gristmill. Incredible skill was required to make, maintain, fix, and balance the stones. Millstones came in sets with stationary stone or bedstone, and the top revolving stone, the runner. Millstones were roughly three-five feet in diameter, eight-ten inches thick and weighted approximately 2,000 pounds. The French burhstone was a popular stone type used in Canadian mills. Frequently the millstones were balanced and dressed. Dressing the stone meant deepening the furrows in both stones. Furrows were cut into the stone and helped move the kernels to the edge of the stone. The actual grinding took place in the flat areas of the stones called the land. The furrows were cut in off-center groove patterns and moved out toward the edges. The revolving or top stone moves above the bedstone and the scissor-like movement ground and moves the kernels to the edge of the stone. To get the best results, the runner stone needed to be properly balanced over the stationary stone. If the stones touched while grinding, an imbalance friction occurs and the flour created was useless. Additionally, the friction created could potentially start a fire.

"As much part and parcel of community life as the church, the mill supported and was supported by a series of craftsmen." The running of the mill required many people; the miller who ground the items, the millwrights who constructed and repaired the mill, sawyers and carpenters who sold the lumber, masons who constructed the towers, and the iron founders who made the cast-iron gears and parts. The changing industry and cutbacks have closed many mills, windmills owners went bankrupt when more dependable engines were built, when better transportation was available to take grain to larger mills and flour to buyers, and when post-World War I flour milling standards took effect. Mills could not meet the standards, and producing feed for animals was not profitable enough. When windmills broke down, the cost to fix them was great. Needing money, millwrights charged more for their services causing less work for them. In 1923, Holland realized its windmills were almost extinct and decided to renovate them, saving thousands and preserving a piece of their history.

"Whenever there was a view extending more than a few hundred yards, you could see windmills, bringing life and movements to the whole landscape. Nothing nowadays replaces that sight." In Canada, the flourmill represented the continuation and solidity of life in growing towns. In a new area, after houses were constructed, the mill was often built next. It brought great economic growth to the community, bringing trades people, settlers, and dealers. The mill, while being an agricultural epicenter, was also a meeting place and center of social activity. In