Notes
1.
E.P. Torrie & Russel Coleman, eds., Historic Kirkcaldy: the archaeological implications of development (Aberdeen: Historic Scotland, 1995), 14, 15.
2.
Fasti, vol. 5, 76–77.
3.
Case 2308. Spottiswoode, History of the Church of Scotland (1655; reprint, Edinburgh, 1851), 66–67. Also Larner, Enemies of God, 70–71.
4.
Case 2307. Ross, Aberdour and Inchcolme, 343–44.
5.
Case 877. RPC, vol. 5, 405–06.
6.
Ibid.
7.
Issobell Rannaldsone (3144); Margaret Elder (3143); Margaret Williamsone (3142). L. MacBean, The Kirkcaldy Burgh Records (Kirkcaldy: n.p., 1908), 148.
8.
Marion Rutherford (3145). Ibid. After discussing her case the editor notes that ‘other entries follow’ and lists the accused, and any personal information related to them. They include Janet Bennetie (3148), Margaret Hoicon (3146), William Patersone (3147), Margaret Elder (3156), Isobell Jonstoun (3155) and her husband Thomas Jamieson (3154); Beigis Blakatt (3153); Goillis Hoggone (3152), Bessie Scott (3151); Isobell Jak (3150); and Bessie Osatt (3149). It is interesting to note that there are two males listed. The marital status of six, including William Patersone, is unknown. Goillis Hoggone was the only widow. All of the other eight were married.
9.
Ibid., 148–149.
10.
Case 2310. Ross, Aberdour and Inchcolme, 344. Andrew Young, History of Burntisland: Scottish Burgh life more particularly in the time of the Stuarts (Kirkcaldy: Fifeshire advertiser, 1913), 205. Young argues the sentence may not have been carried out, as soon thereafter Allan was accused and sentenced for another death.
11.
Anstruther (3103). Smith, Annotated Edition, 382. Anstruther did appear before St. Andrews Presbytery at this time, ibid., 383.
12.
Case 2319. MacBean, Kirkcaldy Burgh Records, 154–55. The banishment was on pain of death. Also in Extracts from old Minute Books of the Burgh of Kirkcaldy (1582–1792), (1862), 18. The latter source suggests it was the thorn (not tron) where she had to stand; the ‘hawthorn tree on the west end of the muir, where the head court as often held’. The tron seems a more likely location.
13.
Case 3044. SYNFIFE, 61. Also Gilmore, Witchcraft and the Church of Scotland, 119.
14.
Agnes Anstruther (2339). This is really a duplicate of the previous case (3044). The SBSW mistakenly located Agnes in St. Andrews. SYNFIFE, 61, 71, 75, 79. Isobell Jhonstone (2338), similarly seems more likely to be from Kirkcaldy than St. Andrews, although her locale is less clear. Ibid., 79.
15.
Birrell (3157). John Campbell, The Church and Parish of Kirkcaldy: from the earliest times till 1843, (Kirkcaldy: Alex Page, 1904), 166.
16.
Case 3158. Ibid., 166.
17.
Case 3159. Ibid., 166–167. Dick’s other appearance in 1633 is also registered as a separate case (2411) as is that involving her husband William Coke (2410).
18.
Case 948. RPC, vol. 12, 490.
19.
Case 1023. RPC 2nd ser., vol. 1, 246.
20.
Pirie (3160); Stark (3161); Birrell (3162). Campbell, Church and Parish of Kirkcaldy, 167. This is clearly the same Helen Birrell.
21.
Patrik Landrok (1026); Helen Darumpill (1027); Helene Dryburghe (1028); Jonet Pedie (275). RPC, 2nd series, vol. 1, 275.
22.
Case 1030. RPC, 2nd ser., vol. 1, 309. The commission was granted to the bailies of Dysart. The deposition bears the signature of the Archbishop of St. Andrews.
23.
Neilsoun (1032), Munk (1031). RPC, 2nd ser. vol. 1, 425. There is also a caution dated September 21st, ordering the bailies to execute the commission for these individuals within six weeks. In this commission Neilsoun is spelled ‘Wilsoun’, ibid., 426.
24.
Case 1033. RPC, 2nd ser., vol. 1, 447–48.
25.
Case 1064. RPC, 2nd ser., vol. 1, 607.
26.
Case 1066. RPC 2nd ser. vol. 2, 122. More information, 12–13.
27.
RPC, 2nd Ser. vol 1., 309. The commission notes that ‘her deposition marked by John, Archbishop of St. Androis’. Ibid., vol 2, 447 the commission against Helen Wilsoun also includes oblique references to her being at meetings and ‘conferences with the devill’ and is signed by the Archbishop. Similarly, commission against Margaret Henderson, May 27, 1627. Ibid., vol. 1, 607. The exception is the commission granted in June against Elspett Neilsoun and Annas Munk. The commission bears the Archbishops name, but is in the more traditional form. Ibid., 2nd Ser. vol. 1, 425. The commission for Katherine Chrystie, November 17, 1627 makes no mention of the Devil. It is signed by several people, including the Archbishop. A difference here may have been the fact that Chrystie had yet to be imprisoned. Ibid., vol. 2, 122.
28.
There was obviously a certain formula for writing commissions related to witchcraft. Still, the difference is interesting. The first commission issued accused Issobell Mawer ‘of the crymes of witchcraft, sorcerie, useing of charmes and inchantmentis, and otheris divilishe practices, offensive to God, skandell to the trew relgioun, and hurt of diverse our goode subjectis’. RPC, 2nd ser. vol. 1, 246. Similar phrasing appears in the commission of April 13, ibid., 275.
29.
Case 2373. John Graham Dalyell, The Darker Superstitions of Scotland illustrated from history and practice (Edinburgh: Waugh & Innes), 424–425. The original source for the reference is the Dysart kirk session minute of May 5, 1626 as recorded in Muir, Notices of the Burgh Church . . . of Dysart (1831). The author could not locate this reference within the Dysart kirk session records; given there are few marginal notes and there was limited time, this should surprise no one. A quick search of the records for this period showed few cases at the dates when commissions were being granted. The exception was Katherine Chrystie, who appeared before the session on November 6, 1627, and was then ordered to appear before the Presbytery. Dysart KS, CH23901.
30.
Kirkcaldy Kirk Session, July 4, 1626. Campbell, Church and Parish of Kirkcaldy, 167. The interpretation of the word ‘carling’ comes from the Concise Scots Dictionary (1987), 85.
31.
Ibid., 167–168. One would expect, particularly in the records of a church court, to have the black man identified as the Devil. Surprisingly, here and in other cases in Fife, this did not happen. Was this understood? Or was this figure understood as less demonic and more like a mischievous fairy?
32.
RPC, 2nd ser. vol. 2, 142–143. The records of the Privy Council contain not only commissions, but counter claims and other information.
33.
Ibid., 143.
34.
Ibid.
35.
Case 1029. RPC, 2nd ser. vol. 1, 297–98.
36.
Guiddale (1338); Broun (1336), Bissat (1337); Galbraith (1335); Janet Scott (1334). RPC 2nd ser. vol. 3, 488. The commission is not too enlightening as it is a ‘similar commission’ to one listed above it, regarding witches being put to a trial in Berwick.
37.
Case 1341. RPC, 2nd ser. vol. 3, 496.
38.
Katherine Chrystie appears under several different case numbers. This is appropriate in her case, as the proceedings always seem to be new ones! This case is listed as case 1340. RPC 2nd ser. vol. 3, 489–90. The text of this complaint is fascinating.
39.
Case 1353. RPC 2nd ser. vol. 3, 532.
40.
Neving (1354), Dasoun (1355). RPC 2nd ser. vol. 3, 535. Similar commissions were being granted for other parts of Scotland at this time. This hunt obviously
was broader than Fife. What is fascinating is the focus on one locality (12 cases, if one includes Janet Wilkie of Wemyss), with only individual witches being charged in St. Andrews and Torryburn.
41.
Case 1381. RPC 2nd ser. vol. 3, 602. The Kirk Session records of Dysart exist for this period. The palaeography is particularly difficult. No mention of the Devil or demonic pacts has been discovered.
42.
Case 2400. The SBSW locates this woman in Dysart, the parish where Presbytery met that day. The problem was occurring in Auchterderran. This is the only case known from this parish. Manuscript of the Presbytery of Kirkcaldy CH22241 27. An excellent transcription of this source is William Stevenson, ed., The Presbyterie Booke of Kirkcaldie: Being the record of the proceedings of that Presbytery from the 15th day of April 1630 to the 14th day of September 1653 (Kirkcaldy: James Burt, 1900), hereafter referred to as the PBK, 35. Like Mark Smith’s transcription of the Presbytery records of St. Andrews these are not excerpts, but the complete minutes. Because of ease of availability, the PBK will be used extensively.
43.
Coke (2410); Dick (2411). The evidence in this case circulated as a pamphlet entitled ‘The Trial of William Coke and Alison Dick for Witchcraft Extracted from the Minutes of the Kirk-Session of Kirkcaldy, A.D. 1636’ which can be found in D. Webster, A Collection of Rare and Curious Tracts on Witchcraft and the second sight; with an original Essay on Witchcraft (Edinburgh, 1820). The author used the edition found in the Ferguson collection at the University of Glasgow. The completeness of the records makes this a worthy case study, which will be dealt with at length in chapter 9.
44.
Case 3134. May 5, 1636. PBK, 92.
45.
Ibid., May 26, 1636, 92–93.
46.
Case 2419. PBK, 113. Certain ‘presumptions’ against him were read on May 4. On May 25 the Bishop states he will not come to hear the case, and Patowne is set free, ibid., 114.
47.
Case 2422. Presbytery of Kirkcaldy minutes, CH22241 f. 113. PBK, 130.
48.
Wilson (2423); Bannatyne (3130). CH22241 f. 113. PBK, 130–131. There is some confusion relating to the daughters of Christian Wilson. Only Bannatyne is named, yet the record from July 12 specifies ‘daughters’ and on July 26 she is said to have appeared with ‘hir two dochters’. CH22241 f. 114. Stevenson, in a rare error, missed the word ‘two’, 131, which ultimately is of little significance as the focus of attention was clearly on the two women whose names appeared in the Presbytery record.
49.
CH22241 f. 116. PBK, 132.
50.
Ibid.
51.
September 20, 1638. PBK, 134.
52.
CH22241 f.114. PBK, 131.
53.
RPC, 135.
54.
Case 2424. SBSW incorrectly located this case in Kirkcaldy. CH22241 f127–28. PBK, 136, 137, 138, 141. The source of the conflict seems to have been over the treatment of a pig: ‘he [James Kedie] having stickit [gored] ane swine to the said Janet Durie befoir for whilk she had professit to causs him rewit.’, 141.
55.
Case 3131. CH22241 f. 127–128. PBK, 148. The case continued throughout 1639 and into 1640. Douglas never seems to have been warded. Ibid., 148, 162, 173, 174, 178, 179, 184. The eventual verdict was that the charges were not proven.
56.
Case 3132. PBK, 187. Lindsay’s actions are described as ‘practices of witchcraft’ at a later meeting of presbytery and she is ordered ‘wardit and tryed’, 189. How this distinction was made between charming and witchcraft remains a mystery.
57.
Case 3135. PBK, 236.
58.
Case 3136. PBK, 240. References are made earlier to someone being suspected of witchcraft in Dysart. From the context, it seems that these were earlier references to this case, 236, 237.
59.
Case 3163. August 30, 1643. PBK, 256. At the next meeting, September 6, mention is made of the ‘woman of Dysert’ being tried at the discretion of the minister. This is stated in the context of a discussion of Christian Crystie of Kirkcaldy (a relation?). Christian is essentially accused of uttering a curse: saying to someone the ‘devill mak hir als daft as ever,’ a charge which she denied. While there is agreement she should be apprehended and put to a trial, exactly when this was to take place was at the discretion of the ministers. Within the same record there is reference to a communication from the presbytery of Dunfermline asking that John Davidson be sent to the Inverkeithing session to state what he knows about Patrick Pearson who has been charged with witchcraft. This gives clear indication of the kind of communication that could move back and forth between presbyteries, making them at the very least aware of cases of suspected witchcraft outside their borders.
60.
Jonnet Smythe (2448). Katherine Wallenge appears as three cases in the SBSW: 2449 as Wallace, 2475 in a duplicate record (except for changes in her fate), and as 2476 under the name Wallenge. These records have been consolidated under case 2449 in the SWHDB. Several sources give the same basic information about her, the best being in anon, A Selection from the Ancient Minutes of the Kirk-Session of Kinghorn (Kirkcaldy: John Crawford, 1863), 50. See also, Alan Reid, Kinghorn: A short history and description of a notable Fifeshire town and parish (Kirkcaldy: L. MacBean 1906), 23–24 and G.W. Ballingall, Historical Collection (with notes) regarding the Royal Burgh and Parish of Kinghorn (Kirkcaldy: Strachan & Livingstone, 1893), 32–33; Gilmore, Witchcraft and the Church in Scotland, 266. The process did not come before the presbytery until March 20, 1644, at which time they agreed there was enough evidence for an assize. PBK, 266.
61.
PBK, May 16, 1633, 63; August 8, 64; October 10, 68; November 7, 69; April 3, 1634, 73; September 18 and 25, 81.
62.
Case 2457. The SBSW gives the source of information as Willis, 31; unfortunately the list of abbreviations gives no further details regarding ‘Willis’. The information given here comes from the records of the session of Markinch, CH22581, December 24 and 31, 1643. No further references to Janet could be found.
63.
Case 3128. There was no minister at Burntisland at the time. PBK, 264. In August the presbytery again discussed the case, this time determining there was enough evidence to justify a commission, 274.
64.
PBK, 265. Given the number of names which appear later in Dysart, this was not entered as a separate ‘case’ in the SWHDB.
65.
Baxter (3137); Rankine (3138). PBK, 265.
66.
PBK, 265, 267. Commissions were sought for Agnes Benettie (3139), Margaret Cunningham (3140) and Margaret Halkhead (3141). No commissions are listed in the RPC.
67.
Case 1459. RPC 2nd ser. vol 8, 28. PBK, August 7, 1644, 274. In the petition Margaret is described as a young woman. It seems that this case had appeared before, on September 11 at which time the bailies and ministers had been called to appear. One of the ministers, James Wilson, had been present and asked for twenty more days in which to obtain evidence. The request was granted. No further evidence was presented and as neither the bailies or ministers appeared, Margaret Young was set free. One final note in this case: the name Margaret Young appears in 1648 in the PBK in another context. Margaret is seeking permission to marry William Hayes and also to be allowed to take communion. She is given permission for the former, but denied the latter ‘till tryell be maid and she is cleired’, 319, 324. Either there was another Margaret Young from Dysart delated for witchcraft or the presbytery had a long, and vindictive, memory. The pursuit of Katherine Chrystie in Kirkcaldy suggests the latter.
68.
This is a ‘true mention’ as discussed by Larner. The only other explanation might be that
Margaret was named by someone burned elsewhere the same year, however this does not seem likely.
69.
Moresone began his challenge before the presbytery on August 7, 1644, PBK, 274. The releasing of others on October 9, 1644, after the Privy Council had ruled in Moresone’s favour, is suggestive. Ibid., 276.
Witches of Fife Page 13