Witches of Fife
Page 8
that it was verie hard to keip young weomen under sclander, and to marre their fortune in the world, and debar them from the benefite of the Kirk, quher ther is nothing but the delatione of one witche, without any sclander befor, or anye other pregnant presumptione before or since.13
The danger of Marie and Janet Mitchell’s strategy in asking for any accusations of witchcraft against them to be tried should not be underestimated. Despite the fact that there had been no indication that either woman was a witch and the seeming recognition that the testimony of an accused witch was not reliable, the presbytery still ordered both women to appear publicly before their congregation. At that time the congregation was to be informed that ‘nothing was found against them saffe onlye that quilk that wretche spak, and how cruell a thing it was, upon so weake a groune, to keip them under so foul a sclander’ – then told if anyone knew anything else about either they had two weeks in which to declare it. If no further evidence appeared, both woman would cease to be debarred from the ‘benefite of the Kirk’.14 To try to clear one’s name was a difficult strategy; to continue to live under an unanswered accusation as a witch seems to have been even more difficult.
The next cases to appear in the presbytery occurred in 1649 in Balmerino and Monimail. The events surrounding Elspeth Seath, Helen Young and Helen Small will be discussed in chapter 8. Along the coast of Tay in Newburgh, Katherine Key was accused as a witch in 1653. Katherine first appeared before the session charged with cursing the minister because he had denied her communion, a charge which she denied. However others claimed to have heard this curse. Then various allegations of acts of evil or malefice against her neighbours were produced, affecting livestock and people. One charge was particularly noteworthy:
3.
That the minister and his wyfe haveing purpose to take ane chyld of theiris from ye said Katharine which she had been nursing, the chyld wold sucke none womans breast, being only ane quarter old, bot being brought back againe to the said Katherine presently sucked her breast.15
After another dispute a little later, the child died. Katherine was summoned before the session to answer all of these allegations. In part suspicion fell upon her, it was noted, because ‘her mother before her was of evil bruit and fame’. Despite numerous witnesses who testified to various acts of malefice and the unanimous sending of the matter to the presbytery, obtaining commissions to try witches was difficult at this time because of the English occupation. In May of 1655 Katherine was found guilty of cursing the minister. Further information about her witchcraft was sought, but none received.16 The Sourcebook lists two other cases from this part of Fife which occurred during the English occupation but no further information has been located.17 All of the cases so far discussed have involved isolated witches, or small groups of witches. That was to change with the hunt which occurred following the restoration.
The witch-hunt of 1661–62
The witch-hunt of 1661–62 is unique within the presbytery of Cupar. This was the only time when more than two parishes were involved. It was also the only occasion when so many individuals were accused. Indeed, during the great witch-hunt which extended throughout Scotland in these years only these parishes in Fife and the parishes of Aberdour and Culross in Dunfermline Presbytery were involved. What is particularly frustrating, given the exceptional character of the hunt, is how little we know about it. Our sources are almost all central government sources which record the commissions granted for various individuals to put to trial those suspected as witches. The records of the presbytery of Cupar are missing for this period. Parish registers and other local records seem to offer no help.18 While the details may in places be scanty, we can at least map out the geographical spread of this witch-hunt which came to involve twenty-nine individuals.
Sometime in late 1661 Margaret Carvie and Barbara Horniman, both of Falkland, were imprisoned at the instigation of the parish minister and the magistrates. Six weeks later the women appealed to the Privy Council for their release, claiming that in the meantime they had endured ‘a great deal of torture by one who takes upon him the trial of witches by pricking’. They proclaimed that, although their current situation was intolerable, they were innocent and no evidence to prove their guilt had been produced. The reply to their petition was an order from the Council for their release.19 Whether that order was obeyed, is unclear. In November 1661, a commission was issued by the Privy Council to put to trial Katherine Kay and Margaret Liddell. It seems reasonable to assume that this was the same Katherine who was sought so persistently during the English occupation. The commission stated that these women had already confessed.20 These may be the two unnamed women executed in Cupar sometime in November, noted by John Lamont in his diary entry; however, Lamont noted that these women had been accused by someone who had already been executed in Newburgh prior to this execution.21 Though the details surrounding the origin are hazy, by November 1661 a hunt was underway.
Commissions were soon issued for other suspected witches from various parts of the presbytery. On January 23, 1662 commissions were issued for Margaret Dryburgh in Falkland; Margaret Bell, Elspeth Bruce, and Elspeth Seatoun in Abdie; Jon Dougleish and Jonet Edward in Flisk; Bessie Duncan in Creich and Jon Brounes and Agnes Brounes in Kilmany; and Issobell Page, Christian Anderson, Christian Bonar, Margret Philp, and Helen Wentoun in Newburgh.22 According to the commissions, all fourteen had already confessed. The commissions for Abdie, Newburgh, Flisk and Creich all list Sir John Aitoun of that Ilk as the first named commissioner. Sir John Aitoun’s name also appears as the first commissioner in a commission dated February 6, 1662 to try Elspeth Millar, Jonet Mar, Alison Melvill, Jonet Staig and Margaret Wishart. Again, all had confessed. To this basic information this commission included the additional phrase ‘by entering into paction with the divell and otherwayes’.23 This and the commission issued in November 1661 are the only commissions during this hunt in which reference is made to any pact with the Devil. Again, in a commission dated April 2, Aitoun’s name was prominent among those designated to try confessed witches Elspeth Anderson of Dunbog, and Kathrin Black and Bessie Simson of Flisk.24
The final cases in this part of Scotland occurred in May, 1662. Two cases appeared in Forgan parish in the presbytery of St. Andrews, which borders the presbytery of Cupar.25 Also, on May 19 the Register of the Privy Council records a plea by the heritors of Auchtermuchty to deal with three individuals accused in a poisoning and an accused witch, Issobell Blyth. Commissions had been granted and the reports produced. The heritors were pleading that sentences be passed, as the cost of imprisonment and support of the prisoners was more than they could bear. The Privy Council ordered the prisoners to be brought to Edinburgh and put to trial.
Map 10 – Fife, 1662. Cases by parish.
The prominent place of Sir John Aitoun of that Ilk’s name on the commissions of nineteen of the twenty-nine accused is striking. All of these parishes in which his name appears were in the central part of the presbytery close to the Tay coast (see Map 10). Falkland, Auchtermuchty, Collessie, Dunbog and Flisk witnessed their only cases during this period, a time of intense witch-hunting in other parts of Scotland. The role of a professional witch-finder during the early stages of the hunt in Falkland is suggestive. It is, however, equally fascinating to note that many parishes produced only a few cases. (The five cases from Collessie and the seven from Newburgh are the exception.) It seems fair to speculate that those whose names appeared in the commissions had already developed a reputation as witches within their communities. One of the first swept up in the hunt, Katherine Kay of Newburgh, certainly did. The dynamic which drove the hunt is unclear. Still, even with a witch-finder present, the selectivity of a few individuals in each parish is worth noting. Unfortunately, there are not enough details to explore the possible connections there may have been between the timing of this hunt and the restoration of the monarchy.26
Summary
The presbytery of Cupar witnessed only this one major witch-hunt. The other known cases all involve isolated witches or a few individuals. Witch-hunting in this area proved remarkably unsuccessful. There were only four known executions, a fact that should not be considered too seriously as we do not know the fate of the individuals in twenty-eight of the thirty-six cases. We do, however, know of several individuals who successfully fought an accusation of witchcraft. This was true whether they were under previous suspicion, as in the case of Elspeth Seath and Helen Small, or had no reputation as a witch, as was the case with Jonet and Marie Mitchells. The poor survival rate of the records for this part of Fife may in part be responsible for the low number of witchcraft cases in the region. But this is not the entire story. Distance from the central government in Edinburgh may have played a role. Whatever the explanation, the presbytery of Cupar was not an area which witnessed large scale witch-hunting.
Notes
1.
Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae, vol 5 section on Cupar Presbytery, esp. 170. For convenience, those cases noted as ‘Newburgh’ prior to this date will still be located in that region in any mapping.
2.
Smith, A study and Annotated edition, 41. Case 3090, SWHDB.
3.
Case 131. Pitcairn, Criminal Trials, vol 3, 95–98. Cited here in Alexander Laing, Lindores Abbey and Its Burgh of Newburgh (Edinburgh, 1876), 219–222. The Justiciary Court record JC 2671 gives details such as the role her husband played and her age. I am indebted to Michael Wasser for this information and his notes on this latter source.
4.
George R. Kinlock, Selections from the Minute of the Synod of Fife (Edinburgh: Abbotsford Club, 1837), 142. Hereafter, SYNFIFE. Cases 2520, 2524 SWHDB. Bessie Cuper’s name also appears in the records as Cupar. At one point, she is also referred as coming from the parish of Lithrie (April 1, 1647 Minutes, Presbytery of Cupar, St. Andrews University Muniments, Ch2821).
5.
Minutes of the Presbytery of Cupar, CH2821. February 18, 1647; STACUPR, 107.
6.
Ibid. February 25, 1647; March 4, 1647; STACUPR, 108.
7.
Ibid. March 4, March 11, April 1, 1647; STACUPR, 110, 111.
8.
Ibid. July 15, 1647; STACUPR, 116.
9.
Ibid. November 26, 1646; STACUPR, 104–105. Also, Gilmore, Witchcraft and the Church of Scotland, 127. Cases in the SWHDB: Marie Mitchells (2528); Janet Mitchells (2529); Grissel Thomson (2530). Numbers in brackets are the cases numbers listed in the SWHDB.
10.
The only notation to Grissel is found here. Given that the presbytery searches its own records, it seems reasonable to assume she was from the presbytery of Cupar. The SWHDB lists her as being from the parish of Cupar, although this remains uncertain.
11.
Presbytery of Cupar, CH2821. December 3, 1646. This information was not excerpted in STACUPR. Further reference is made to George Thomsone during the meeting of December 10.
12.
SYNFIFE, 148.
13.
Presbytery of Cupar, CH2821, December 31st; STACUPR, 106.
14.
Ibid.
15.
Case 2737 (duplicated as case 2735) quoted in Laing, Lindores Abbey, 224. Unless indicated otherwise, references are to the SWHDB.
16.
Ibid., 223–27.
17.
The cases were from 1656: Elspeth Scroggie (209); and, Agnes Pryde (210). The SBSW lists the source of this information as ‘the Scottish Record Office hand list of processes.’ It has not been possible to locate this list at the S.R.O. using this reference. No reference to these cases occurs in either STACUPR or the Manuscript of the Cupar presbytery minutes.
18.
The presbytery minutes end in 1660 and do not exist again until 1693. The gap, obviously, covers this period. This gap would not be so serious were there any records from the affected parishes. Unfortunately there are no records from Abdie, Auchtermuchty, Creich, Collessie, Dunbog, Flisk, or Kilmany. The records of Falkland parish do exist (St. Andrew’s Muniments, CH24281) but no references in them to Barbara Horniman or Margaret Carvie were discovered. The Session records of Newburgh, which exist, contain evidence of other discipline cases at the time but no comments relating to suspected witches.
19.
Robert Chambers, Domestic Annals of Scotland, vol. 2 (Edinburgh, W&R Chambers, 1858), 279.
20.
Kay (1603); Liddell (1604) SWHDB. RPC, 3rd series, vol. 1, 90.
21.
Two cases in the SBSW, as 2815 and 2816. G.R. Kinloch ed., The Diary of Mr John Lamont of Newton, 1649–71 (Edinburgh: Maitland Club, 1830), 142.
22.
Margaret Dryburgh (1623), RPC 3rd S. vol.1, 142–43. Margaret Bell (1625), Elspeth Bruce (1626), Elsepeth Seatoun (1627), Jon Dougleish (1621) and Jonet Edward (1622), ibid., 141. Bessie Duncan (1637), Agnes Brounes (1629) and Jon Brounes (1630), ibid., 142. Issobell Page (1633), Cristain Anderson (1635), Cristian Bonar (1636), Margret Philp (1634) and Helen Wentoun (1632), ibid., 142.
23.
Margaret Wishart (1643), Jonet Staig (1644), Alison Melvill (1645), Jonat Mar (1646) and Elspeth Millar (1647), RPC 3rd Series, vol. 1, 154.
24.
Elspeth Anderson (1674), Kathrin Black (1673) and Bessie Simson (1672), RPC 3rd series, vol. 1, 191.
25.
Jonnet Annand (1692) and Elizabeth Clow (1693); RPC 3rd ser. vol. 1, 208. Isobell Blyth (1749). RPC 3rd ser. vol. 1, 209–210.
26.
Levack, ‘Great Scottish Witch Hunt,’ 107–108.
CHAPTER FIVE
The Witch-Hunt in the Presbytery of St. Andrews
Situated to the east of Cupar Presbytery, the presbytery of St. Andrews stretched along the entire east coast of Fife, including parishes along the shores of both the Firth of Tay and Firth of Forth. Throughout most of the period there were nineteen parishes in the presbytery.1 As well as St. Andrews itself, other significant ports included Pittenweem, Crail, and Anstruther. This area saw some of the earliest sessions established and was one of the earliest functioning presbyteries in Scotland with records dating from 1587. The area was rich in commerce and contained St. Andrews, one of the major burghs at the time with an estimated population of 2,500 individuals in the years after the Reformation.2
Early years in St. Andrews presbytery: 1569–96
Witch-hunting began early in this area of Fife yet our evidence for what occurred in these years is very sparse and fragmentary. References are made in 1569 to the execution of the notable sorcerer Nic Neville, and the condemnation at the same time of William Stewart, Lyon King of Arms, for ‘divers points of witchcraft and necromancy’.3 It seems that William Stewart was hanged, while Neville was ‘brunt’.4 Thus, the first two individuals condemned in this presbytery were male, and one, William Stewart, of some rank. Coupled with these executions were others of unnamed witches in St. Andrews and Dundee.5 Several cases of a political nature occurred throughout the period although we do not have specific dates. The Archbishop was called a witch as was Patrick Adamson and the curate of Anstruther.6
The name of John Knox finds itself attached to an execution in St. Andrews of an unnamed female witch in 1572. Knox’s role in the incident seems to have been minor. According to his secretary:
Map 11 – The parishes in St. Andrews Presbytery.
Parish
code
Abercrombie
1
Anstruther Easter
2
Anstruther Wester
3
Cameron
4
Carnbee
5
Crail
6
Dunino
7
Elie
8
Ferryport-on-Craig
9
Forgan (St. Fillans)
10
Kemback
11
Kilconquhar
12
Kilrenny
13
Kingsbarns
14
Largo
15
Leuchars
16
Newburn
17
Pittenweem
18
St. Andrews
19
The 28 of Apryle thair was ane witche brunt in St Androis, wha was accused of mony horrible thingis, prowen. Being desyred that scho wold forgive a man, that had done hir some offence (as scho alledged), refused; then when ane vther that stude by said, gif sho did not forgive, that God wald not forgive hir, and so scho suld be dampned. But scho not caren for hell nor heawin, said opinlie, I pas not whidder I goe to hell or heawin, with dyvers vtheris execrable wordis. Efter hir handis were bound, the provest causeth lift vp hir claithis, to see hir mark that scho had, or to sie gif sho had ony thing vpon hir I can not weill tell, bot thair was a white claith like a collore craig with stringis in betuene hir leggis, whairon was mony knottis vpon the stringis of the said collore craig, which was tacken from hir sore against hir will; for belyke scho thought that scho suld not have died that being vpon hir, for scho said, when it was taken from hir, ‘Now I have no hoip of my self’.7