Fraudulent Cases: Demon Drummer of Tedworth 1662 Flashcards
Who was John Mompesson?
He was a landowner and JP in Tedworth (Wiltshire-Hampshire border).
What was Mompesson acting as in March 1662?
Acted as a commissioned officer in the county militia, intervening in the case of William Drury.
Who was William Drury?
He was an ex-soldier and a drummer.
What was Drury doing?
He was attempting to raise alms for the poor but was doing so fraudulently - he was using a forged pass.
What did Drury use his drum for?
It was to alert people to his cause.
How was Drury’s fraud discovered?
- He demanded money off a constable who became suspicious.
2. Mompesson reviewed his pass and realised that the signatured were forgeries.
Why did Drury need a pass anyway?
Passes were so that people travelling from parish to parish (eg, entertainers) weren’t arrested for vagrancy.
What did Mompesson order and confiscate?
He ordered for Drury’s arrest and confiscated his drum.
Drury was later released
What happened when the drum was sent to the Mompesson house?
Disturbances occurred.
What were the recorded disturbances? (5)
- Thumpings heard along with the sound of a drum playing military marches.
- Sounds of scratching and dog panting.
- Strange light and sulphurous smells.
- Objects thrown and horses injured.
- Xmas Day: Mompesson’s mother’s Bible was found buried beneath the hearth’s ashes.
What is the importance of the sulphurous smells?
The smell is linked to Brimstone - this was associated with the devil.
Why was Drury being held in Gloucester?
Pig stealing.
Did the disturbances cease during Drury’s imprisonment in Gloucester?
NO
The disturbances led to the house becoming what?
An attraction - people would go to see the disturbances for themselves.
Why was interest around the house heightened further?
There was a rumour that Drury had told a fellow inmate that he had bewitched Mompesson.
What demonstrates the far reaching publicity of this case?
The King’s representatives were sent to investigate the house.
Joseph Glanvill’s involvement:
What was different between Glanvill’s account of the case and the one in the newspapers?
Glanvill did not mention Mompesson.
Joseph Glanvill’s involvement:
What did he do in January 1663?
He investigated the house himself and professed to have heard noises.
He interviewed eyewitnesses - they blamed Drury and the use of magic.
Joseph Glanvill’s involvement:
April 1663: What did Glanvill say happened to the disturbances when Drury was sentenced to deportation?
He said that the disturbances ceased for awhile but that Drury had used supernatural powers to escape.
What happened after Drury escaped his deportation?
He escaped on the Severn, was caught and tried for witchcraft, acquitted but then deported anyway for theft.
What happened once Drury had been deported?
The disturbances started up again and continued for several years.
Were people completely believing of the case?
No, scepticism had developed immediately.
What did Glanvill try and persuade the Royal Society with?
He tried to persuade them that they could study witchcraft rationally and scientifically - many actually supported this but his book was not published by them.
How did John Webster counter Joseph Glanvill?
He said the whole case was fraudulent and that Mompesson was behind it.
What demonstrates the impact of the case and Webster?
Webster’s book (The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft, 1677) was published by the Royal Society, showing a lack of support in supernatural belief.
Which famous author criticised Glanvill’s account and who did he inspire?
Balthasar Bekker in “The World Bewitched” (1692-4).
This inspired John Beaumont.
What does Beaumont claim about the case?
He claims the servants did it to scare Mompesson’s mother.
What may have exacerbated Mompesson’s dislike for Drury?
Drury had served in the Parliamentarian army, whilst Mompesson was a Royalist.
Further, Drury was raising alms for disabled soldiers but only Royalists were allowed this, but Drury lied about being in the Royalist army.
Who originally put forward the spiritual explanation?
Locals and neighbours.
Mompesson’s view was shaped by those around him - he originally suspected burglary.
What made this case important?
The case was revisited a lot over the ensuing decades, provoking wider debate on the reality of supernatural forces.
Further, as great thinkers began to approach witchcraft with a more critical eye, they became suspicious of Mompesson.
What shows a lack of impact with this case?
At the time, practically everyone believed it to be the result of supernatural forces.
It wasn’t until years later that scepticism actually arose from it.
