Spirited away, early modern style

The passage above is taken from the incorrigible Joseph Glanvill's work, A Blow at Modern Sadducism (1668) - a work whose boundless conviction somehow failed to extend to its own rather underwhelming title, which hardly lives up to the 'Beacon Lit'/'The Beacon Quenched' style of ding-dong that was so characteristic of the age. But that by the way.

Glanvill has just surmised that "The Laws and affairs of the other world ... are vastly differing from those of our Regions". Forgetting what he's just said, he goes on to make one of his frequent close analogies: he cannot conceive of Hell except as a place with differing social classes, and laws applicable to all the fallen spirits.

He has been puzzling at the motivations of those fallen angels who become familiar spirits. One surmise he makes is that such beings are in fact spirits of the malignant dead. Or then, they might be conceived of, he suggests, as the socially most lowly demons, spirits of a working class kind, who alone would tolerate the probably painful business of inhabiting the body of a small animal. Glanvill then arrives at a surmise that apparently satisfies him as his final suggestion, based on property rights: perhaps these demonic lowest-of-the-low are prepared to give so much effort to winning witches, soul and body, because they thereby acquire property rights over them, after the completion of pact, in Hell.

Glanvill makes analogies with the right of the successful hunter to the dead body of his animal quarry, slave-owners to slaves, and if these things were not chilling enough reflections on the non-diabolic state of things, he suddenly sees these low and deceiving devils as being like "the seducing fellows we call Spirits, who inveigle Children by their false and flattering promises, and carry them away to the Plantations of America, to be servilly employed there".

This was a new form of early modern moral awfulness to me. The OED recognises the usage, under its entry for 'spirit':

The first quotation from Bulstrode Whitlocke actually records a Parliamentary ordinance passed in 1645. This is the full passage:

"May, 1645: 9. An  Ordinance against such who are called Spirits, and use to steal away, and take up children,  and bereave their Parents of them, and convey them away. And they ordered another Ordinance to be brought in to make this Offence Felony."

Despite attempts to regulate, the professional child abductor was a long-lived evil. The OED's 1690 quotation comes from this passage, which appears to be arguing that such abductions were in the end a lesser evil:

"Virginia and Barbadoes were first peopled by a sort of loose vagrant People, vicious and destitute of means to live at home (being either unfit for labour, or such as could find none to employ themselves about, or had so misbehaved themselves by Whoring, Thieving, or other Debauchery, that none would set them on work) which Merchants and Masters of Ships by their Agents (or  Spirits, as they were called) gathered up about the Streets of London, and other places, clothed and transported, to be employed upon Plantations; and these I say were such, as had there been no English foreign Plantation in the World, could probably never have lived at home to do Service for their Country, but must have come to be hanged or starved, or dyed untimely of some of those miserable Diseases, that proceed from want and Vice; or else have sold themselves for Soldiers, to be knocked on the Head or starved in the Quarrels of our Neighbours, as many thousands of brave English men were in the low Countries, as also in the Wars of Germany, France, and Sweden, &c. or else if they could, by begging, or otherwise, arrive to the Stock of 2s.6d. to waft them over to Holland, become Servants to the Dutch, who refuse none."

This was the text of the Restoration attempt at regulation of this trade in minors in 1685. Interestingly, the bias of the legislation is to create legal protections for the 'Merchants and Planters', who have been taken to law by people who had taken the money, and then complained of abduction by 'spirits'.

[A transcript of the ordinance]:

"Whereas it has been Represented to His Majesty, That by reason of the frequent Abuses of a  lewd sort of People, called Spirits, in Seducing many of His Majesties Subjects to go on Shipboard, where they have been seized, and carried by force to His Majesties Plantations in America; and that many idle Persons who have Listed themselves Voluntarily to be Transported thither, and have received Money upon their Entering into Service for that purpose, have afterwards pretended they were betrayed, and carried away against their Wills, and procured their Friends to Prosecute the Merchants who Transported them, or in whose Service they are, by Indictments, or Informations in the Crown Office in His Majesties Name, which is a great Discouragement to them, and an Hindrance to the Management of the Trade of the said Plantations, and Navigation of this Kingdom; And several Merchants and Planters having made humble Applications to His Majesty, That he would be Graciously pleased to Direct such Methods for their Retaining of Servants to Serve in His Majesties Plantations, as in His Royal Wisdom he should think meet, whereby His Majesty may be so satisfied of their Fair Dealing, as to take off all Prosecutions against them at His Majesties Suit; And also that the Scandal that now lies upon them in general, by reason of such Evil-disposed persons, may not remain upon such as shall for the future follow such Methods as His Majesty shall think fit to be pursued.

His Majesty taking into His Royal Consideration the said Request, is Graciously pleased to Declare, That such Merchants, Factors, Masters of Ships, or other Persons that shall use the Method hereafter following, in the Hiring of Servants for His Majesties Plantations, shall not be Disquieted by any Suit on His Majesties behalf, but upon Certificate thereof, that He will cause all such Suits to be stopped, to the end they may receive no further Molestation thereby.

I. Such Servants as are to be taken by Indenture, to be Executed by the Servant, in the presence of the Magistrate, or Magistrates hereafter appointed; One part thereof Signed by such Servant, and also Underwritten, or Endorsed with the Name and Hand-writing of such Magistrate, which is to remain with the Clerk of the Peace, to be Returned to the next Sessions, there to be Filed upon a distinct File, and Numbered, and kept with the Records.

II. The Clerk of the Peace is to keep a Fair Book, wherein the Name of the Person so Bound, and the Magistrates Name before whom the same was done, and the time and place of doing thereof, and the Number of the File shall be Entered: And for the more easy finding the same, the Entries are to be made Alphabetically, according to the first Letter of the Surname.

III. All Persons above the Age of One and twenty years, or who shall, upon View and Examination, appear to be so in the Judgment of the Magistrate, may be Bound in the presence of One Justice of the Peace, or of the Mayor, or Chief Magistrate of the Place where they shall go on Shipboard; who is to be fully satisfied from him, of his free and voluntary Agreement, to enter into the said Service.

IV. If any Person be under the Age of One and Twenty years, or shall appear so to be, he shall be Bound in the presence of the Lord Mayor of London, or One of the Judges, or an Alderman of London, being a Justice of Peace, or the Recorder, or Two Justices of the Peace of any other County, or Place, who shall carefully Examine whether the Person so to be Bound, have any Parents, or Masters; And if he be not Free, they are not to take such Indenture, unless the Parents, or Masters give their Consents, and some Person that knows the said Servant to be of the Name, and Addition mentioned in the Indenture, is to Attest his said knowledge upon the said Indenture.

V. If the Person be under the Age of Fourteen years, unless his Parents shall be present, and Consent, he is not to be carried on Shipboard, till a Fortnight at least, after he becomes Bound, to the intent that if there be any Abuse, it may be discovered before he be Transported. And where his Parents do not appear before the Magistrate, Notice is to be sent to them; or where they cannot be found, to the Church-Wardens, or Overseers of the Parish where he was last Settled, in such manner as the said Magistrates shall think fit, and Direct.

And because Clerks of the Peace may conceive this not to be any part of the Duty of their Office, and may therefore exact unreasonable Rewards for their trouble and pains therein, His Majesty doth Declare, That if any Merchants, or other Persons shall be aggrieved thereby, and upon Complaint to the Justices cannot obtain Relief, His Majesty will take such further care for their ease herein, as in His Royal Wisdom He shall think meet. And His Majesties further Pleasure is, That this Order be Printed and Published, to the end all Persons whom it may concern, may take Notice thereof, and govern themselves accordingly."


This all seems quite sensible, whether such provisions were observed is another matter. The legislation is all reasonable carrot and no stick; the last paragraph rather ominously anticipates the recalcitrance of some of the state officials for whom all this was a new area of duty.

Behind the terminology, 'spirits', for those who inveigled minors and other to go as servants and workers to New England was an equation, utterly pessimistic about America as a prospect, with those supernatural spirits who'd try to induce you to go to hell. The same equation is lurking too in the robust response that those who end up in New England were going to hell anyway, being idlers and good-for-nothings. Promoters of the plantations had tried to represent North America as a new Eden, a paradise on earth, not a new hell (for example William Bullock's VIRGINIA Impartially examined, 1649, or Samuel Clarke's A true and faithful account of the four chiefest plantations of the English in America to wit, of Virginia, New-England, Bermudus, Barbados (1670), while others were vehement to dispel any such notion (for instance, George Gardyner, A description of the new world (1651).

The better informed, not young people deluded by 'spirits', do seem to have been wary of the risks. I've always been struck by Old Seeley, returned to his sense at the end of The Late Lancashire Witches, threatening his whole family with deportation to the colony unless they behave themselves better in future: "I’ll ship you all for New England else."

Little Charles and Big Charles, 1679

Just to keep the blog going (for I am soon slipping away from the computer on a week’s break), I expeditiously lift from EEBO Strange and wonderful news, or, The Full and true relation of the miraculous inspiration of Charles Bennet, born at Manchester in Lancashire (1679)

“Who being but THREE Years of Age, Speaks without the Least Instruction: English, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew; so Perfect and Authentickly, the like thereof hath not been heard of in any Age.”

The inspired little Charles is described in a pamphlet which is partly a description of a portent or prodigy, but mainly an advert, for he was “now to be Seen & Discoursed withal at the Bear-Inn in West-Smithfield.”

He was the son of a Lancashire linen weaver, “a Man of mean Education and Fortune”, and was born “on or near the 17th. of June, in the year of Mans Redemption, 1676”. Charles was when very young “often observed by his Parents to be more serious and considerate then appertained to one of his age, many times musing, and seeming to deliberate with himself; the which at first they did not so fully regard, but after he could go alone, and began to speak, (the which he exercised sooner then usual) many grave Sentences were observed to proceed from him…”

Here’s the early modern gifted child then: not rattling through calculations in his head, but solemnly emulating his only likely intellectual role-model, by reproducing the ‘grave sentences’ of a preacher.

The moment when his parents realised what their son was capable of was also religious in nature: “the first Discovery of the profound Knowledge that for a long time had absconded in his Microcosnick structure, was about a month or Six Weeks since: his Father after Divine Service taking a Bible, and reading a certain Chapter in one of the Evangelists, by accident, or through ignorance omitted, or preposterously read a certain Verse or Sentence: the Child aforesaid being present, reproved him of his error, and told him there was no such sentence in the Scripture, or Word of God: at which his Father being in a consternation, casting his eyes upon the Text where he had read, found himself mistaken, whereupon he examined him how he knew, having never seen nor known the Scriptures as to the Practick part: to whom the aforesaid Charles most discreetly replied; That he could, and in his conceit had often conversed therein, and if occasion required, could Read them in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.

The child’s words about the scriptures are enigmatic: “in his conceit had often conversed therein”, “and if occasion required, could Read them in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew”. The first part floats between young Charles being, in his fancy, conversant with the scriptures and a sense that he projected himself into the bible passages he heard, inventing his own replies to the words of biblical personages. The claim that he could read the scriptures in the learned tongues seems a firmer affirmation, but is still connected syntactically to Charles’ conceit, his fancy that he could do such reading.

But his unique selling point was not his precocious learning, but his very lack of instruction: that he could only say these things, and read these languages, through inspiration. His parents acted swiftly: “This raised the primal Character of the Child’s more then ordinary perfection, sent his fame abroad, so that many hundreds from Towns and Villages adjacent to the place of his Nativity, came flocking to take a view of him, and to discourse in all the Tongues premissed, who did as freely Answer, to the great astonishment of all that heard: for many Ministers and Learned Men were likewise curious to satisfy themselves in the certainty hereof, and when they had beheld and found it true, they went away with admiration.”

Those ‘Ministers and Learned Men’ who talked to Charles discoursed ‘in all the tongues premissed’. He either understood, and answered in Latin, Greek and Hebrew, or he convinced them that he had understood. Perhaps Charles already knew his New Testament closely enough to pick up the thread of a bible-based discourse when he heard names in the text.

When he is exhibited in London, we get more detail on what he could do, and there’s more suggestion here that the boy had an idetic memory, and could call up images of a bilingual dictionary (if any such had passed through his little hands):

“After some time his Fame was noised in the great Metropolis of London, to which by the advice and persuasion of some of their Friends, his Parents brought him about Five days since; and coming up by the Warwick-shire-Carrier, they Inned or took up their lodging at the Bear-Inn in West-smith-field: where no sooner was the rumour of their being there spread abroad, but numbers flock’d to see a wonder they had heard of some time since: he being accompanied with his Parents in a very spacious Room on the left hand going into the Inn aforesaid, where many Ministers and others discoursed and questioned with him on Saturday the 28th. of which this Deponent was one who did both reason with him in English, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew; to which he soon answered, and rightly expounded and Interpret each Word a Sentence; the truth of which, this Deponent is ready to Justify upon Oath if need requireth: Some of which Words I shall here (for the more perfect satisfaction of the Reader) Insert, Imprimis, he was asked Latin, Greek, and Hebrew for a Man, to which he as readily Replied, Vir, Inthropos, Addam; For a Woman, Mulier, Genue, Eveve; For Boy, Pueri, A Girl, Puella; his Fore-head, Fronte, A Hat, Gallerus. As likewise many other words and Propositions, too tedious here to Insert.”

Charles very carefully avoided cheapening himself. His parents gratefully accepted donations from visitors who were convinced that they had seen a prodigy, but Charles preserved his other-worldly mystique by spurning gifts:

“His Parents take no Money at the Door, but are willing to accept the free Benevolence of Gentlemen: The Child will not accept any Gift, be it Money or any other Present; but if it be forced upon him, he will absolutely refuse and throw it away, showing how little he regards such transitory Trash, the which is no ways permanent.”

For he had a mission in mind, a purpose for his inspiration. Somehow he had been led to seeing himself as oracular, and that the most impressive thing he could do would be to speak privately to the King – and then expire!

“The Child had, as his Parents report, an earnest desire many weeks before he came to London, to speak with his Majesty, and that he had some business of Importance to declare to his Sacred self: the which they much Noted by his earnest and often repeating the same desire, the which was, as some report, to speak Three Words, and after the deliverance of which, he Prophetically foretells his Dissolution as to this life.”

Whether the child got his meeting with his royal namesake is something the reporter avoids positively affirming. He is himself sure the meeting happened. Others affirm that little Charles repeated his usual display for the King. It doesn’t seem that Charles II gave the infant a private audience, but, if little Charles did get so quickly to Whitehall, took a passing amusement amidst his court. The phrasing lets the reader hope that the child delivered a message from heaven:

“In the space of Nine days, but this is not certainly known, but sure I am, that upon Notice of the said Child’s being in Smithfield, his Majesty was graciously pleased to send for him to his royal Palace of White-Hall, on Monday the 30th. of this instant June, 79; who in a Coach waits His Majesties good pleasure: and as it is credibly reported, most fluently answered to several Questions, to the great admiration of all that were present; but what was there said it not as yet precisely known.”

The title page was less cautious, for the pamphlet had to be made to sell. That Charles’ wish to speak with the king came true is asserted, with half a suggestion that the reader will get an account of the special message he had brought from heaven and Lancashire:

“As also the Account of his Earnest Desire to Speak with HIS MAJESTY: The which he Effected, and some Words he Spake, on Munday the 30th. of June 1679. Being brought into the ROYAL PRESENCE.”

If big Charles met little Charles, I am sure it would have been done more in the spirit of the Royal Society than from a sense of the boy as heaven-sent prodigy. If little Charles spoke to his King, I imagine it would have been to whisper a choice bible text. For Charles II, it must then have been as if the boy was a voice from the past, an earlier 17^th century England where inspired reading of the testament was everything. In my fancy, I picture the King dividing his attention between the solemn and tiny child and one of his spaniels: “All I observed there was the silliness of the King, playing with his dog all the while and not minding the business”, as Pepys once put about a meeting of the royal council.

My image is a portrait of a boy by Jan Van Bijlert.