Don't Blame the Curates, Dead or Alive
When news of ghostly disturbances at Syderstone parsonage hit English papers in 1833, a dash of local gossip about the haunting was sprinkled into the report. After reviewing the facts of the case, London's Weekly Dispatch (May 6, 1833, pg. 4) added: "It had been formerly reported in the village that the house has been previously haunted by a Rev. Gentleman who died there about 27 years ago...". Subsequent reports name this suspected spirit "Mental" -- later correctly identified as "William Mantle" -- but then testimony given by Elizabeth Goff, the deceased clergyman's servant, suggested strange phenomena was already present when he arrived there in 1785. Besides, Mantle appears to have died in 1797, which would have been 36 years earlier, making the reported "about 27 years ago" a bit timey-wimey.
Goff's testimony, however, was not taken to dispel rumors about the ghost of William Mantle lingering at Syderstone parsonage. As discussed in Part 1, it was intended to refute allegations that the haunting was a ruse created by one or more of its current, very-much-alive residents: the family of the Reverend John Stewart. If a former curate had found the parsonage haunted when he got there, then the present curate's claim to have done the same is substantiated.
Tensions Rise Between a Ghost Hunter and the Press
Then the press announced that Stewart had organized a ghost hunt at the parsonage, one comprised largely of his clerical colleagues. The article first appeared in the Bury and Norwich Post on May 29, 1833, and I show the relevant portion of it in Part 1. But one investigator, the Reverend Samuel Titlow (c. 1793-1871), was quick to issue a correction about what had occurred during the investigation. Curiously, Titlow's complaint appeared first in a rival paper, the Norwich Mercury.
Norwich Mercury, June 1, 1933, pg. 3
With a raised editorial eyebrow, the Post replied:
Bury and Norwich Post, June 5, 1833, pg. 3. On the front page of their June 12 issue, the Post admits that Titlow had written them a letter about his concerns, but it "did not reach us till after our publication." After printing the letter itself, the editor expresses regret for the earlier snarky comment.
With an ecclesiastic eyeroll, Titlow wrote to the Norfolk Chronicle, yet another competing paper. It was common practice for newspapers to freely reprint -- often, word-for-word -- what had appeared in other papers, and the Chronicle had done exactly that with the Post's report on the ghost hunt. (There's a reprint of the latter article here.) Apparently, Titlow was covering all bases by writing to multiple journals.
Norfolk Chronicle, June 8, 1833, pg. 3. A reprint of the entire letter is
available here.
Titlow's goal was not to completely deny what had been reported in the Post. There were noises -- but they were not loud noises. There were knocks -- but they were neither powerful nor most tremendous knocks. There was a scream -- but it did not alarm him.
Wait. There was a scream? An unalarming scream? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? What Titlow proceeds to say about this scream is important because -- while others were working to shield the Stewarts from the stigma of committing a hoax -- he declares that there is at least a possibility of something very much like that at work:
I cannot speak positively as to the origin of the scream, but I cannot deny that such a scream may be produced by a ventriloquist. The family are highly respectable, and I know not any good reason for a suspicion to be excited against any one of the members; but as it is possible for one or two members of a family to cause disturbances to the rest, I must confess that I should be more satisfied that there is not a connection between the ghost and a member of the family if the noises were distinctly heard in the rooms when all the members of the family were known to be at a distance from them.
From this point on, we'll see that tensions between the ghost hunter and the press were redirected, causing a division between Titlow and his co-investigator, the Reverend John Spurgin (1787-1857).
Tensions Rise Between Ghost Hunters
At first, Spurgin had joined Titlow in attempting to assure the public that, while the ghost hunters had encountered strange sounds without discovering an explanation for them, the press had exaggerated things. In a letter that appeared beside Titlow's in the Chronicle (reprinted here), he gives his own account of the night's activity and, at one point, declares that the Stewarts were not responsible. After discussing the knocks, he turns to moans and groans. These seemed to come
from the bed of one of Mr. Stewart's children, about ten years of age. From the tone of voice, as well as other circumstances, my own conviction is, that these 'moans' could not arise from any part of the child. Perhaps there were others present who might have had different impressions....
It's very likely that, once Spurgin's letter was printed, he saw Titlow's encouraging further investigation with the Stewarts "at a distance." He might also have read John Baker publicly contending that a ventriloquist was behind the haunting (as discussed in Part 1), though apparently Baker wasn't the only one putting forth that idea. Very definitely, Spurgin wrote additional letters intended to defend the Stewarts' innocence. In one, he opens by saying that mounting aspersions against the family impelled him to protest:
Norfolk Chronicle, June 15, 1833, pg. 3
Titlow saw Spurgin's follow-up letter as a personal attack. In his own second letter to the Chronicle, Titlow reminds readers that he had carefully praised the Stewarts' respectability while also contending that "it is possible for one or two family members to cause disturbances to the rest." He merely pointed out the possibility and then nudged Stewart toward allowing an investigation with the family absent to help arrive at some substantial conclusion about the case.
Titlow also challenges Spurgin's claim about hearing scratching when the Stewarts were "a considerable distance from the spot." He says:
Norfolk Chronicle, June 29, 1833, pg. 3
Sure enough, Spurgin wrote to the Chronicle yet again. It would be tiresome to detail all of the retorts in this long letter. It's a bit like reading the comments on social media, and doing so reveals that the era's Anglican Church leaders certainly could get hot under the collar. Suffice to say, Spurgin accuses Titlow of not practicing "Christian love" and of "bearing false witness against an unoffending brother":
Norfolk Chronicle, July 13, 1833, pg. 4
Dang! The Reverend Spurgin accused the Reverend Titlow of being a bad Christian, doing so in a public forum! He next turns to that evidence noted above, the witness testimony supporting the claim that the weird noises didn't start with the Stewarts. Spurgin ends by addressing Titlow's suggestion that Stewart allow an investigation with the family absent, saying that the phenomena is random -- it might go quiet when the ghost hunters waited there -- so "the experiment therefore so loudly called for becomes too hazardous to be adopted." Point taken.
But had Titlow "loudly called for" such an experiment? Didn't he simply say he would be more convinced the case wasn't a hoax "if the noises were distinctly heard in the rooms when all the members of the family were known to be at a distance from them"? Was it unreasonable to determine whether or not the Syderstone haunting was like the debunked ones on Cock Lane in 1762, in Stockwell in 1772, or in Hammersmith in 1804? Would Spurgin have been so invested if Stewart has been, let's say, a cobbler instead of a curate? Perhaps, lurking beneath it all, Spurgin saw the mere suggestion of a testing for a hoax as a challenge to church authority, to a sovereignty too sacred, too unquestionable, or even too fragile to allow for such a trial.
If nothing else, the division between Titlow and Spurgin indicates a difficult decision facing ghost hunters before and after them. Those in Spurgin's congregation might argue that, when paranormal investigators test for fraud, they cast a specter of doubt over people claiming to be already haunted. The acolytes of Titlow, however, might see debunking as one form of exorcism, allowing those same people to sleep better.
No comments:
Post a Comment