The “Ghost” at Brynmawr.
Sir, – Of all superstitions the most insane and nonsensical is that of ghosts. The “ghost” at Brynmawr has been all the talk there, and at Blaina as well, during last week. Hundreds of people have been collecting, night after night, around a certain house in New-street, to listen to the mysterious sounds proceeding from within, which are said to have their origin in some restless spirit returning to its former haunts.
Day after day have I listened to tales brought from all directions concerning the “ghost,” some contradicting each other, and all of them exaggerating what they supposed they had heard. It is not worth while giving publicity to the story that is advanced to explain the reason of the “spirit’s return.” It is so absurd; and it is almost inconceivable that such a nonsensical story, devoid of all common sense as it is, should have the power to gather, night after night, hundreds of people to listen to the supposed performance of the ghost.
The ghost has done a lot to show one hitherto ignorant of the fact, how prevalent is the absurd and insane belief in the return of “spirits.” And it is somewhat amusing to note the serious manner, and solemn shake of the head, of some people when they talk about this affair. I havelistened to tales that have been told in the most serious manner, and, apparently, with the greatest confidence in their authenticity, the events of which occurred forty or fifty years ago, and which are so awful that it is a wonder to me that those who believe in them have the courage to go out after sunset, or sleep in a dark room. The sudden appearance of the ghost at Brynmawr has revived all these old and well-believed in legends in all their ancient glory.
Now, had this ghost been one of the ordinary ones we have here now and again, it would not have been worth writing about. But it seems that this ghost has had more than ordinary influence, for, besides attracting the attention and presence of ordinary superstitious and curious folks, it is reported very commonly (and upon that I write) that no less than six Nonconformist ministers were conspicuously present among the crowd and in the house on one of the nights last week, and as soon as the crowd saw them the inference was that they were going to “lay the ghost.”
Now, sir, I put it to you fairly, did these gentlemen betray an overplus of common sense in making themselves conspicuous by their presence on such an occasion? Here we have men who are educated, who are supposed to lead the people from the darkness of ignorance, who are supposed to look down upon anything that has a tendency to bind men to any foolish and insane belief, here we have these men, I say, practically encouraging and fostering by their presence the most insane of insane superstitions. It may be argued that they went there as many others undoubtedly did – merely from curiosity. Even if that be true, it is no excuse for an action so indiscreet and devoid of common sense. It may be said that they went there to endeavour to persuade the young woman out of her illusions. If so, they should have sought a more convenient as well as more respectable time than eleven or twelve o’clock at night.
That by going there they did something very foolish and indiscreet is certain, for already they are continually referred to as believers in ghosts by those who are champions of that species of creation, and who sometimes find it hard to promulgate their doctrines.
If that young woman, through morbidness and melancholia, arising from a bad digestion and many more natural causes, really believed that she was haunted by the spirit of her mother, and if the people present on the night referred to were superstitious (and undoubtedly they were), then the presence of those gentlemen has only tended to increase that belief, and spread that superstition, for it wsas only last Saturday night I heard several of the superstitious saying “That the ministers had ‘laid the ghost’ for a hundred years,” while the more sensible said, “I never thought they were so green.”
Well, by all account, the ghost has gone, but the bad influence of an indiscreet action remains, and, sir, while I ask you to excuse me for taking up so much of your space, I would suggest that if any reasonable excuse can be made for these gentlemen, it had better be made at once, as all the neighbourhood, at least the superstitious part of it, is wondering what can it mean. In conclusion I sincerely hope that if anything has been misrepresented in what I have written, I shall be pardoned and contradicted.
I am, &c., One Opposed To Superstition.
Merthyr Express, 28th July 1883.
The Ghost at Brynmawr.
Sir, – Your correspondent, “One Opposed to Superstition,” in writing on the above subject, says “Day after day I have listened to tales brought from all direction concerning the ghost, some contradicting each other, and all of them exaggerating what they supposed they had heard.” Now, sir, if your correspondent were not foolish and untruthful he would never circulate what he acknowledges to have been contradicting and exaggerating tales.
He admits that the reason why he wrote was, because it had been reported to him “that no less than six Nonconformist ministers were conspicuously present on one of the nights.” Now, he would have shown a little common sense if he had told us how much of this part of his contradicted and exaggerated story was true, for I only saw one Nonconformist minister present, and, by his efforts to discover the cause of what your correspondent calls “mysterious sounds,” it was very clear to all that that minister was no believer in ghosts.
Again he says, “Now sir, to put it fairly, did these gentlemen betray an overplus of common sense in making themselves conspicuous by their presence on such an occasion?” To this I reply that if they (if more than one) showed the same overplus of common sense by their “conspicuous presence” as the church schoolmaster did, for no one made himself more conspicuous than he, although your correspondent ignores his presence, so that he might meanly traduce Nonconformist ministers.
He adds, “It may be said that they were there to endeavour to persuade the young woman out of her illusion. If so, they should have sought a more convenient as well as a more respectable time than eleven or twelve o’clock at night.” If he were as anxious to have acquired facts as fallacies he would have known that the only conspicuous minister had visited the young woman for the purpose he names, at three o’clock that afternoon, and, concerning the late hour, why did the schoolmaster remain in the house so long after the minister had left?
He writes, “Only last Saturday night, I heard several of the superstitious saying ‘that the minister had laid the ghost for a hundred years.’ Well, by all accounts the ghost is gone.” No; it seems that the same mysterious sounds, as your correspondent calls them, are heard still; but as the four policemen – the sergeant included – the conspicuous Nonconformist minister, and the church clerk and schoolmaster, all failed to discover the cause, the family are trying to discover it themselves.
Your correspondent signs himself “One Opposed to Superstition,” but we all know how superstitious he is , yet we do not know that all his Church friends were equally superstitious, until he showed it in his letter. He says, “Day after day I listened to the tales brought from all directions concerning the ghost,” and “I have listened to tales that have been told in the most serious manner, and, apparently, with the greatest confidence in their authenticity, the events of which occurred forty years ago.” What a revelation for him to make! How very green he is!
Now, we all know that “birds of a feather flock together,” and that as it was with the Jews and Samaritans, so it is now – the Church have little or no dealings with the Nonconformists – hence it is very plain that he got all his contradicting and exaggerating statements from his superstitious Church friends.
It is well known that his master is a firm believer in ghosts, even down to the latest Llanthony Abbey apparition, and it is just as well known that the Brynmawr schoolmaster is the vicar’s man every inch of him. – Yours etc. One Who Knows.
[In justice to the Brynmawr Schoolmaster we feel bound to state that the letter to which the above is a reply was written by a gentleman who is a perfect stranger to Mr Tong. – Ed. M.E.]
Merthyr Express, 4th August 1883.
The ghost at Brynmawr.
Sir, – In your last issue “One Who Knows” says that if I were not foolish and untruthful, I should not circulate that which I acknowledge to be contradictory and exaggerated tales. I wish to tell him that I have circulated no exaggerated and contradictory tales, and he must have been very inattentive to my letter not to have seen it. In my first communication I said that “I had listened to tales, some contradicting each other, and all of them exaggerating what they (the people who told them) supposed they had heard.” Now this, of course, as any one might easily see, had strict reference to what the people heard, and not to what they saw, or, in other words, the statement quoted above could only be applied to the noises that were to be heard near the house.
But your correspondent has taken certain parts of my letter and endeavoured to connect them with other parts which they had no application. I have circulated no tales whatever, for the only statement I made was directly connected with the ghost, namely, that it was commonly reported that there were no less than six Nonconformist ministers present on one of the nights. Now, if it was commonly reported it could hardly be considered contradictory, and it would be impossible for me to judge as to whether it was exaggerated. Besides, I took care to inform him that I wrote upon common report (not on contradictory and exaggerated tales); and from a fear that common report might have misled me, I asked for pardon and contradiction if anything had been misrepresented.
Your correspondent has taken upon himself the task of contradicting me, but while I find that common report did mislead as to the actual number of ministers present on the night referred to, I also find that, if I were to regard his letter as true, I should be led still further from the truth. I should have been glad, indeed, to have discovered that but one minister was present, as he says; but I am sorry to state upon reliable evidence that he is, at least, three out of the way. He says that the minister he saw there showed clearly by his efforts to discover the cause of the noises that he was no believer in ghosts. What a picture he gives us of another “good man gone wrong.” Fancy a minister looking out the cause of ghostly and mysterious sounds, while the majority of the ever-increasing crowd outside were allowing their merriment to overcome their superstition for the time being – some shouting, some laughing, and others cheering, and one or two making extempore speeches, the foolishness of which, I have no doubt, equalled the occasion. Your correspondent has here written in my favour, and I ask you if that was occupation calculated to elevate the dignity of the pulpit.
He says also that the ministers showed as much common sense by being there as the Church schoolmaster did. What a ridiculous excuse. This is as much as to say that, if a person does something that makes him appear foolish and indiscreet, he can turn round and excuse himself by saying that he exhibited as much common sense as someone else who did the same. I have also to contradict the contradiction concerning the time the ministers were present. Your correspondent’s signature seems to imply that he is possessed of boundless and authentic knowledge on the subject on which he wrote. I am sorry to tell him that he doesn’t know all that he wishes to imply by his signature, and that there are “some who know” in Brynmawr besides himself.
He, again, says that the ministers, public men, the sergeant, &c., have all failed to discover the ghost, and now the family are trying to do so themselves. If I had my way, the family should have looked for it at first.
Your correspondent also wonders at my “greenness” in expressing surprise at the insanity of superstitious tales I had heard. I do not know that I manifested any particular “greenness” by so doing, but I do know that he must have felt very particualrly “green” when he discovered what an awful mistake he had made as to my identity. Ah! how great his disappointment must have been! I sincerely hope he hasn’t taken it to heart, or we don’t know where it will end.
In conclusion I assert, and emphatically assert, that the action of those gentlemen referred to in connection with this most absurd affair has resulted in much harm. From every-day conversation with a class of men who, above all others, are likely to be supersitious, I learn that the insane superstition of ghosts is being extended, and the still more insane belief of laying ghosts is strengthening. I refer now to men who do not read, or, perhaps cannot read, and who depend upon others for any information beyond their own homes, who have been brought up by superstitious parents – parents who have filled their children’s minds with these silly tales and their belief in phantoms – have been strengthened and increased by intercourse with equally superstitious people. These are the people who have suffered by the action referred to, and he who comes into daily contact with them can say so.
Yours truly, One Opposed To Superstition.
Merthyr Express, 18th August 1883.
The Ghost at Brynmawr.
Sir, Your correspondent “One Opposed to Superstition” has written a long rigmarole, which with your kind permission, I will open in one of two places, like the boy did the bellows, to see where the wind came from. He complains because I charge him with being “foolish and untruthful.” His second letter lay him open to a repetition of the same charge. Showing the truth of the old proverb, “Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar, yet will not his foolishness depart from him.”
He begins the second paragraph by saying of himself, “I have circulated no exaggerated or contradictory tales.” And lower down, he says “I find that common report did mislead me as to the actual number of ministers present.” So then, after all, he does confess it was an exaggeration that he wrote as to the number of ministers present.
Farther down, he writes of me, “He again says that ministers, public men, the sergeant, &c, have all failed to discover the Ghost.” Now, Sir, your correspondent is shamefully untruthful. On looking over your report of my letter, I find that I did not say “ministers, public men,&c.” These words are not used by me, and I am sorry he is so untruthful as to say they were. Nor did I say, “have all failed to discover the Ghost,” nor words that could be so construed, and it is a great shame that he has no regard for the truth.
Sir, allow me to give him a little advice, in case he tries his hand again in newspaper correspondence. Don’t write in ignorance of the subject. Don’t write simply because Mrs Gossip has been your informant, or you will be sure to go wrong again. In the next place, try and be truthful. It is so bad for a man to exaggerate, and then have to draw back his words, as is your case concerning the number of ministers present; and don’t neglect to draw your pen across the confused parts of your letter. If you had observed these three simple rules, instead of exhibiting folly in several counties by the press, it would have been confined to the narrower circle of your superstitious friends.
I also notice that he tries to be merry at my chagrin of mistaken identity. I feel like the boy Sambo did, when his master, having completed his toilet, turned to the darkey and said, “Well, Sambo, and how do you think I look now?” “O! splendid massa; me never saw you look so fierce before. You look like a lion.” “A lion, Sambo! Why, you never saw a lion.” “Yes, massa; I see Mr Smith’s boy ride one to the mill every day.” “Why, that is a donkey it is.” “Me can’t help dat, massa; you look exactly like him.”
One Who Knows.
Merthyr Express, 25th August 1883.
The ghost at Brynmawr.
Sir, – “One who knows” has evidently lost his temper, and as anger is nothing short of temporary madness, I suppose he is not responsible for the foolishness he manifested in his letter. Now I again write, if it is worth while replying to such an ignoramus, that I have circulated no “exaggerated tale..” In my first letter I said, “It is commonly reported that six Nonconformist minsters, &c.” Now, if common report said that there were six there, in what sense have I written an exaggeration? I did not say that there were six ministers there; I could not do so; I was not there to know how many were present. I merely reported what “common report” (not gossip) said. Of course, it turned out that common report missed the number by two, but that did, in no way, alter the truth of my statement, for common report had said what I affirmed it had said. The exaggeration was common report’s, and not mine.
But why so much fuss about the exaggeration made by common report? That does not in any way lessen the absurdity of the action of the number that was exaggerated. Of course, your correspondent knows this, and attempts to hide it by a lot of tall talk about exaggerations and contradictory tales, etc., etc.
In justice to myself and your correspondent, I must say that I was as much surprised as he to see the words “ministers” and “public” in my letter, which should have been “ministers” and “police.” Of course, Mr Editor, I do not mean to put the fault entirely upon you. I have no doubt that it was a pure mistake on which ever side it was made. It would, however, be the height of absurdity to suppose that if I made the mistake I wilfully and intentionally did it.
What more has your correspondent to say on my letter of the 18th inst.? Naught. What has he said? Nothing. He has not attempted to deny that superstition and insane beliefs have spread and strengthened as the result of the action of the gentleman referred to. He has not one word to offer to justify their presence on such an unseemly occasion. On these, which are the subject of the whole correspondence, he is silent.
Facts, of course, are stubborn things, and because they do not go with him he allows his tongue to wag out a lot of the most nonsensical and flimsy talk which is altogether foreign to the subject, and through which the long ears of the donkey he has evidently made of himself may be seen.
Your correspondent, further on, offers me advice on letter writing. Now I do not make any high pretensions in that direction. Doubtless I shall have to follow his example pretty closely before I shall be able to develop so much ribaldry as he has; but for all that, I regret him as a teacher. If you are particularly desirous of teaching, I would advise you to initiate some “raw recruits” into the mysteries of “ghost hunting”; so I believe you to be a far greater authority on that than on any other subject. In my turn, allow me to offer some useful advice to you on your letter writing. In the first place, keep cool; do not allow your temper to become your master; if you are defeated, try to make the best of a bad job. I am sorry to see that, from a want of that most requisite virtue, self-restraint, your letters have exhibited more rashness than reason.
Secondly: Write so that those who read what you write may be able to discern some little connections between your letter and its title. At present, you are all abroad, and I am beginning to suspect that you are one of those ranting preachers, who begin at Genesis, and finish – heaven knows where. Now Sambo, learn these two very necessary rules in your case, and endeavour to manifest more common sense in your next production. I would also advise you in case you have nothing to say on the questions at issue, to give your “experience”while playing “hide and seek” with the ghost, as it would, no doubt, prove very amusing and novel reading.
One Opposed To Superstition.
Merthyr Express, 1st September 1883.