The Demon Drummer of Tedworth, 1662 (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
The Demon Drummer of Tedworth, 1662
Overview
The Demon Drummer of Tedworth case (1662) represents an important turning point in attitudes towards witchcraft in Britain. While initially widely believed to be genuine supernatural activity, the case later became subject to increasing scepticism and criticism, reflecting broader changes in how educated society approached claims of witchcraft.
This case is particularly significant not because it was immediately doubted, but because of how attitudes toward it evolved over the following decades. It became a focal point for debates about the validity of witchcraft claims and the application of rational, scientific thinking to supernatural phenomena.
Timeline of key events
1636 - Joseph Glanvill born in Plymouth
March 1662 - John Mompesson interrogates William Drury and confiscates his drum
May 1662 - The haunting begins after Drury's drum is sent to Mompesson's house
1662 - Glanvill becomes Vicar of Frome Selwood, Somerset
December 1662 - Drury held at Gloucester on suspicion of theft
January 1663 - Glanvill visits Tedworth manor house to investigate
April 1663 - Drury is sentenced for theft and ordered to be deported
1664 - Glanvill elected to the Royal Society
1668 - Glanvill's first account of the case, A Blow at Modern Sadducism, is published
1680 - Glanvill dies
The initial confrontation
Background to the case
John Mompesson was a landowner and Justice of the Peace (JP) living at Tedworth, on the border between Wiltshire and Hampshire. In March 1662, Mompesson was also serving as a commissioned officer in the county militia (a military force of non-professional soldiers organised at county level).
William Drury's fraud
William Drury was a drummer and former soldier who worked as an entertainer, performing as a juggler, conjurer and hoop-dancer. In March 1662, he was fraudulently attempting to raise alms (money or food for the poor) using a forged pass. He drew attention to his cause by repeatedly banging his drum.
The fraud was discovered when Drury demanded money from a constable, who became suspicious. When Mompesson examined the pass supposedly signed by two JPs he knew, he immediately recognised the signatures as forgeries.
The arrest and confiscation
Under 17th-century law, official passes were essential for people travelling from parish to parish to avoid punishment as a vagrant (someone able to work but choosing not to, who wandered seeking employment or begging). Without such a pass, individuals faced harsh punishments including whipping and branding.
The legal system's harsh treatment of vagrants reflects the social anxieties of 17th-century England, where wandering poor people were viewed as a threat to social order and stability.
Mompesson ordered Drury's arrest and confiscated his drum. Drury was later released, but the drum was sent to Mompesson's house in April 1662.
The haunting at Tedworth
The disturbances begin
In May 1662, the month after the drum arrived at his house, Mompesson's family began experiencing a series of unexplained disturbances:
- Thumping sounds were heard throughout the house, along with the sound of the drum playing military marches
- The family heard scratching noises and sounds resembling a dog panting
- Strange lights were seen in and around the property
- Sulphurous smells were detected, which people associated with brimstone and therefore with the Devil
- Objects were thrown around rooms without any visible cause
- Beds were raised into the air while family members were in them
- The family's horses were mysteriously injured
- On Christmas Day, a Bible belonging to Mompesson's mother was found buried beneath the hearth ashes
Persistence of the phenomena
The disturbances continued for several months, even after Drury was imprisoned in Gloucester on charges of pig stealing. This seemed to suggest that the supernatural activity was not dependent on Drury's physical presence.
The continuation of disturbances while Drury was imprisoned was considered particularly significant evidence of supernatural activity. However, this same fact later became crucial to sceptical interpretations - if the phenomena continued without Drury, perhaps he was never responsible in the first place.
Public interest
The house became a local attraction, with many people visiting to witness the disturbances for themselves. The case attracted attention at the highest levels - even representatives of King Charles II were sent to investigate the phenomena.
Interest intensified when rumours spread that Drury had confessed to a fellow inmate that he had bewitched Mompesson from prison.
Joseph Glanvill's involvement
Newspaper coverage
The case appeared in two newspapers widely read in London and by educated people in the counties: Mercurius Publicus and The Kingdom's Intelligencer. These were accessed by many of the gentry and some educated tradesmen and farmers.
Interestingly, Mompesson's name only appeared in these newspaper reports, not in Joseph Glanvill's more detailed later account. This discrepancy has led historians to question the reliability of different sources about the case.
Glanvill's investigation
Joseph Glanvill was a clergyman who became fascinated by the case after it had become notorious. In January 1663, he visited Tedworth manor house to investigate the spirit personally.
During his visit, Glanvill claimed to have:
- Heard the mysterious noises himself
- Spent considerable time interviewing eyewitnesses
- Gathered testimony from witnesses who claimed William Drury was using witchcraft to control events from a distance
Drury's trial and sentencing
In April 1663, Drury was found guilty of theft and sentenced to deportation to the English colony of Virginia.
According to Glanvill's account:
- The disturbances stopped immediately after Drury's sentencing
- Drury allegedly used supernatural powers to raise storms at sea during his transportation
- He escaped while his ship was still on the Severn Estuary
- He was recaptured and tried for witchcraft at Salisbury, but was acquitted
- He was once again sentenced to deportation for theft
- The disturbances at Tedworth began again and apparently continued for several years
Glanvill's publications
Glanvill published his account of the case in A Blow at Modern Sadducism, In Some Philosophical Considerations about Witchcraft (1668). The title references the ancient Jewish sect of Sadducism, which rejected core Christian beliefs including belief in the Devil.
A collection of Glanvill's writings, Saducismus Triumphatus (Sadducism Triumphed Over), was published posthumously in 1681 and again in 1688-89. The frontispiece of this work depicted various cases of possession and witchcraft, with the Demon Drummer of Tedworth shown in the upper-left image.
Glanvill and the Royal Society
Glanvill attempted to persuade the Royal Society (a society founded in 1660 to promote the advancement of science and rational thought) that witchcraft cases could be studied and proven true using rational, scientific methods. Many members of the Society initially favoured his approach.
Despite being a member of the Royal Society (elected 1664), Glanvill had limited understanding of actual science and was prepared to believe that magic was entirely plausible. This contradiction highlights the tension between emerging scientific thinking and traditional supernatural beliefs in the 17th century.
Growing scepticism about the case
John Webster's criticism (1677)
The first substantial sceptical response came from John Webster, a preacher and doctor, who published The Displaying of Supposed Witchcraft in 1677.
Webster's criticisms included:
- Claims that he had been informed by reliable sources that the entire case was fraudulent
- Allegations that Mompesson himself was responsible for the noises heard in the house
- An attempt to impress the Royal Society with his sceptical approach
The publication was approved by Sir Jonas Moore, Vice-President of the Royal Society, which greatly annoyed Glanvill.
Further criticism
The case was attacked again in:
Balthasar Bekker's The World Bewitched (1692-94), which inspired further criticism
John Beaumont's Historical, Physiological and Theological Treatise of Spirits, Apparitions, Witchcrafts, and other Magical Practices (1705), in which Beaumont suggested that:
- Mompesson's servants may have been responsible for the disturbances
- Two young women who worked in the house carried out the phenomena to scare Mompesson's mother
- This theory was supported by evidence from Mompesson's own letters
Evidence from Mompesson's letters
Mompesson's correspondence reveals important details that cast doubt on the supernatural explanation:
Initial confusion: His letters show he was initially mystified by the events and originally suspected burglary, not supernatural activity. This suggests the supernatural interpretation developed later rather than being his immediate response.
Influence of visitors: His explanation evolved based on suggestions from neighbours and visitors rather than his own experiences:
- When a minister visited and suggested the Devil might be responsible, Mompesson's tone changed to favour a spiritual explanation
- After a neighbour mentioned stories of fairies leaving money in people's shoes, Mompesson reported hearing jingling money in the house
Servant problems: Mompesson's letters reveal his anxious state of mind after servants claimed that if they left their employment, no one else would want to take their place, thus making them his masters. This suggests servants may have had both motive and opportunity to create the disturbances.
Political and personal context
Civil War connections
Mompesson's dislike for Drury may have been intensified by their opposing sides in the English Civil War (1642-46):
- Mompesson had fought for the Royalists during the war
- Drury had served four years in the Parliamentary army
When first interrogated, Drury presented a forged warrant claiming he was seeking alms for disabled soldiers. After the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660, only Royalist soldiers were eligible for financial aid. Drury falsely claimed to have served in a Royalist regiment commanded by Mompesson's friend.
It is very likely that Mompesson knew Drury had actually fought for Parliament, which would have given him additional personal motivation to pursue him harshly. This political dimension adds another layer to understanding why Mompesson may have been predisposed to believe the worst about Drury.
Historical significance of the case
Contemporary belief
Initially, there appeared to be a national consensus that supernatural forces were responsible for the disturbances at Tedworth. The case was widely believed and attracted interest from the highest levels of society.
Long-term importance
The case's true significance lies not in immediate doubts, but in how it was revisited over subsequent decades:
- As leading thinkers of the age began to approach witchcraft with a more critical eye, they became increasingly suspicious of Mompesson's account
- The case became a focal point for debates about the validity of witchcraft claims
- It demonstrated the shift from automatic belief in supernatural explanations to rational, sceptical investigation
- By the time Glanvill's Saducismus Triumphatus was published (1681, 1688-89), the peak of English witch-hunting had passed, and his book was not taken seriously
The Demon Drummer case thus represents an important transition point in changing attitudes towards witchcraft claims in Britain. It exemplifies how the same set of events could be interpreted completely differently depending on the prevailing intellectual climate - initially as proof of supernatural forces, later as evidence of fraud or psychological suggestion.
Joseph Glanvill (1636-1680)
Background: Glanvill was raised a Puritan and became a clergyman after being educated at Oxford University.
Dual approach: Despite his deep-rooted religious beliefs, he recognised the need to approach the study of the world in a rational, scientific way. He became a member of the Royal Society in 1664.
Key publications:
- Scepsis Scientifica (Scientific Scepticism) (1665) - advocated the scientific method
- A Blow at Modern Sadducism (1668) - valuable source on the Demon Drummer case
- Saducismus Triumphatus - collection of writings published posthumously (1688-89)
Limitations: Despite being a member of the Royal Society, Glanvill had little understanding of actual science and was prepared to believe that magic was entirely plausible. By the time his Saducismus was published, his work was no longer taken seriously.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
The Demon Drummer case began in March 1662 when JP John Mompesson confiscated the drum of fraudster William Drury, followed by months of alleged supernatural disturbances at Mompesson's house
-
Joseph Glanvill investigated and published accounts of the case (1668), attempting to prove witchcraft could be studied scientifically, but faced growing scepticism from figures like John Webster (1677) and John Beaumont (1705)
-
Evidence suggests possible fraud: Mompesson's own letters show his explanation evolved based on visitors' suggestions rather than his own observations, and servants may have had motive to create disturbances
-
Political tensions from the English Civil War likely influenced the case, as Mompesson (Royalist) and Drury (Parliamentarian) had fought on opposite sides
-
The case's importance lies not in immediate doubts but in how it was revisited over decades, becoming a focal point for debates about witchcraft as attitudes shifted from belief to rational scepticism