Witches of Fife

by Stuart MacDonald

  Cases continued in other parts of the presbytery throughout July and into August of 1649. Bessie Mortoun and Marjorie Phillip of Dunfermline were first named before the session on July 15.90 In Aberdour the wife of Henry Stanehouse was warded as a suspected witch. The wife of Thomas Smith, although under suspicion, was not warded as she was pregnant.91 In early August commissions were issued for Aberdour and Inverkeithing granted in response to the information received by the ministers and elders of these parishes.92 Three new suspects, Katherine Smith, Beatrix Douglas, and Marjorie Durie (and possibly a fourth, if Marion Durie was not another name for Marjorie) were accused and warded in Inverkeithing in August.93 In Aberdour, Margaret Currie was also listed as a suspect in August. The fact that presbytery received a list of those named by ‘dying witches’ in Aberdour makes it clear that some executions took place around this time within that parish.94 In Dunfermline, incarcerated witches were being held under continual watch by the magistrates.95 The kirk session records of September 18 note expenses of £6/16s given to the beadle for maintaining ‘some poor witches’ (a comment that indicates economic status, not sympathy) and £3/12s paid to the hangman – an indication that executions here were also likely.96

  Both the hunts and opposition to them continued. In August Robert Brown approached the Committee of Estates concerning his wife Marjorie Durie (as she was known in this record) who was being held in the steeple of Inverkeithing. Robert stated that his wife

  is threatened daylie with brands and his putt[ing] the sark gorm (waxy shirt?) upon her and is lying in that miserable condition upon the ground non of her family having liberty to see her [not] so much as cloathes upon her . . .97

  After hearing his testimony the Committee of Estates ordered his wife removed from the church steeple and put ‘in some other prison house wher she may be safely kept’ and ordered that the family have free access to her. The Committee also stated clearly their opposition to ‘any manner of torturing or hard usage’ of Marion Durie or others held in Inverkeithing. The presbytery was not pleased and sent Walter Bruce and George Belfrage to Edinburgh to try to get this decision overturned:

  The Presbytery finding that the people much wronged, and the worke of god in the descoverie of witchcraft much obstructed.98

  Both parties appeared before the Committee of Estates in September. The presbytery claimed the Committee had been misled and complained that ‘the work of God in punnishing that abominable sin (had been) greatly obstructed’ by the orders of the Committee. (Remember, Marion Durie had not been found innocent or set at liberty. The Committee had only ordered that her family have access to her and that she be maintained in a prison other than the church steeple.) The presbytery protested that Marion had previously escaped. Morever, the Devil’s mark had been found ‘in diverse parts of hir body’. The presbytery asked that she be kept in ward for an indeterminate length of time until she could be made to confess. They also asked that her husband Robert Brown be made to pay the costs.99

  Presbytery won this appeal to the Committee of Estates. The Committee thanked the presbytery for ‘thair time and faithfulness in the discoverie of the said cryme of witchcraft desyring them to continue therein’. At the same time, the Committee ordered the presbytery to ‘be sparing in causing torture the persounse dilated for witchcraft’.100 A similar attempt by John Dunino from Dunfermline to intervene on behalf of Bessie Maghorn, met with the same result.101 At the next meeting of the presbytery on September 19, 1649, Robert Brown found himself in difficulty, first for ‘calmuniating the Presbytery before the estates of Parliament’ and second for falsely claiming his wife was in France. He was ordered to repent.102

  Tensions surrounding the witch-hunt continued. The kin of Margaret Henderson and some members of the Inverkeithing session also found themselves in difficulty. After being warded in Edinburgh, Margaret Henderson (Lady Pittathrow) had apparently committed suicide.103 Problems emerged in Inverkeithing when she was buried in the church cemetery with the approval of some members of the session.104 In Dunfermline David Rotsone, the husband of Marjorie Phillip who had been detained since July, appealed for her release because she had been held so long and under such harsh conditions. The session’s decision was strange: she was set free upon caution, but banished from the parish of Dunfermline.105 Bessie Mortoun continued to be held. In December Mortoun was pricked by John Kincaid, the witch-finder, and subsequently executed.106 This is the only direct reference to Kincaid’s involvement in the hunt in Dunfermline Presbytery in 1649. There are, however, mentions of the Devil’s mark being found on Marion Durie. Kincaid’s role may have been more to convince the sceptical at this juncture than as the main driving force in a hunt which had begun, however tentatively, at least eight months previously.

  In the last months of 1649 the hunt moved into Culross. It must have been difficult with so many parishes in the presbytery caught up in witch-hunting to have been slandered as a witch. Thus in November, Jonet Paterson attempted to defend herself by accusing Isobell Stewart and Bessie Cowsey of slander for ‘calling her a witch’. Yet such as strategy was very dangerous. Isobell appeared before the session, claiming that she could prove that Jonet Paterson was a witch. Her evidence must have been convincing for the session noted in early December that there was enough evidence given in against Janet Paterson to put her to a trial.107 Similarly Janet Anderson came before the session of Aberdour in March, 1650 accusing Isobel Inglis and Marjorie Flooker of calling her a witch. When Isobel Inglis appeared to answer the charge, she suggested that Janet Anderson had used a spell to murder Isobel’s child. Again, it was Janet who was imprisoned, although she was eventually released.108 Robert Cousing’s name appeared under different circumstances. He was accused of being a messenger for a witch, and eventually was made to repent before the church for his actions.109

  In May 1650 Marion Cunningham of Dunfermline was accused by Jonet Hutton and John Colyear as a witch. Again, the case began as one of slander when Jonet allegedly called Marion a witch. Soon, however, the focus shifted to Marion and her saying of a prayer which was not ‘lawful’ each night as she went to bed. The part which Jonet claimed to remember went

  out throw toothe and out throw tongue out throw liver and out throw longue, and out throw halie harnpan, – I drank of this blood instead of wyne, thou shalt have mutifire all thy days syne, the biter and the baneshaw and manie euil yt no man knowes.110

  While Marion denied knowing this prayer, other neighbours came forward and stated she indeed did and mentioned a further petition to ‘Ladie sweet st marie’. When confronted with this Marion confessed to some things, denied others, and in the end was called a perjured liar by the session and was denied communion.111 The only other information we have for this year comes from a cryptic reference to a woman in Torryburn who the session warned was ‘infamous for theft and witchcraft’.112

  As has been detailed above, the years 1649 and 1650 witnessed a massive hunt in Dunfermline Presbytery. At this time of political and religious turbulence in Scotland the unique quality of this hunt is especially noteworthy. From rather simple beginnings involving charming and ignorance a serial hunt emerged in which elite notions of witches’ gatherings and compacts with the Devil rapidly overshadowed the more traditional concerns with malefice and acts of ill will, particularly in the burgh of Inverkeithing. Those who have discussed this hunt have seen Walter Bruce as the key player, suggesting this was one way in which he could divert attention from his troubled ministry.113 Bruce clearly was a major player in this hunt but he alone cannot be cast as the villain. The fact remains that this large hunt occurred in a burgh which had previously witnessed another dramatic hunt. Inverkeithing was fertile ground for these accusations. The times also encouraged the seeking out of all enemies of God, including witches, as the church sought to finally achieve its goal of buil
ding a godly society. The combination of personality, community memory and religious fervour was deadly.

  In terms of the dynamics which drove this hunt, there is evidence witch-pricking was involved in the later stages. Torture may also have played a role, although here our evidence is indirect, involving Marion Durie’s complaint that she was threatened and how one interprets the Committee of Estates comment to the presbytery to be ‘sparing in causing torture’. However, should torture have been used on those held in the church steeple, this would have been illegal, not the ‘judicial’ torture that was part of a formal legal trial. What did play a role, even the crucial role, was the ability to ward and watch these women, isolate them from the families, and presumably deprive them of sleep.

  Scattered cases: 1654–66

  The decade of the English occupation saw only a scattering of cases in this part of Fife. In 1654 Margaret Cant asked the session of Aberdour to clear her of certain accusations of witchcraft. They refused until such time as all those who had been accused could be dealt with.114

  Katherine Smyth of Inverkeithing appeared before the High Court in 1655.115 The next year an unnamed female from Inverkeithing was executed at the castlehill in Edinburgh.116 That same year in Culross, Elspeth Craiche was warded in the tolbooth as a confessed witch. The difficulty was what to do with her, as she could not be executed unless murder by witchcraft could be proven against her. The Minister Robert Edmonstoun, who had made enquiries in this regard while in Edinburgh on other business, suggested the council should see if they could obtain a commission. Despite several efforts, no commission could be obtained and Elspeth Craiche had to be set at liberty, in part because of the extreme expense in keeping her.117

  While the restoration of the monarchy did not cause a major reaction throughout Dunfermline presbytery similar to the one in the presbytery of Cupar, old scores were settled in both Aberdour and Culross. In July of 1661 the session of Aberdour asked that, ‘Seeing there are severalls in this toune, that long ago should have been apprehended for witchcraft and never hands yet laid upon them’, the bailies arrest Margaret Currie and Catherine Robertson, both of whom had been ‘accused by dying witches’.118 Margaret Currie and Margaret Cant, who had tried unsuccessfully to clear her name in 1654, were soon arrested. After being imprisoned and watched they confessed and named Janet Bell and Susana Alexander as witches.119 Both of these women were also imprisoned. A witch-finder played a prominent role in the investigation of Janet Bell, a woman whom Lord Morton attempted to set at liberty. The others had confessed before a witch-pricker was brought on the scene.120 Clearly some long memories were at play, both in the sessions initiating this hunt and in those who were originally examined. Similar memories led to the arrest of Elspeth Craiche in Culross in March 1662. She was imprisoned in the hope of getting her to admit to her former confession and two men were set to watch her, night and day, so that ‘she may do no evill to herselfe’.121

  The next years saw a scattering of cases. Sir George MacKenzie, the famous Scottish legal authority, speaks of some witches who were burned in Culross in 1665, based upon their confessions that they had been transported to public conventions of witches by the Devil.122 Another curious reference to Culross also refers to a witch’s flying. It states that the witch who had to be carried to the execution spot on a chair because she had broken her back when she fell while flying to escape being warded. The date when this incident occurred is not given.123

  In 1666 commissions were issued against seven witches in Torryburn. All had been imprisoned in the tolbooth. The commission was to put them to an assize and discover whether they ‘shall be found guilty upon voluntar confessions of renuncing their baptisme or entering into paction with the divell or that otherwayes malifies be legally and judicially proven against them’.124 What is interesting to note is that the commission does not state that these individuals have already confessed. This may be as significant as the phrase ‘voluntary confession’. The fate of these individuals is unknown. The concern seems to have spread to the Dunfermline session the next year, although it is unclear whether any individuals were charged.125 The interest, however, had not ended. A decade later in 1677 Andro Currie and his wife accused Isobel Cupar of slander for calling them a warlock and witch respectively (and also calling their daughter a thief). Isobel Cupar was found guilty of slander and called to repent.126 A similar successful slander charge was raised by Elspeth Kirkland against Bessie Lamb in Aberdour in 1681, when the latter named the former a witch.127 Such accusations of slander seemed easier to win in this period; it still is fascinating that people would go to the trouble to make sure their name was cleared.

  The Sabbat in the West Kirk, Culross: 1675

  In the midst of these accusations of slander, a particularly unique case occurred in the history of the Fife witch-hunt. In Culross in 1675 four women, three of whom were widows, were accused before the High Court of being witches.128 What makes this case involving Katherin Sands, Isobell Inglis, Agnes Hendries, and Jonet Hendries, interesting is that these are the only cases in which certain elements – carnal copulation with the Devil, and attendance at sabbats held in deserted churches – often considered the staple fare of Scottish witch-craft cases appear. The details in this situation are all just too precise, too stereotypical. We have encountered individuals meeting with the Devil, or giving themselves over from the top of their head to the souls of their feet, or receiving his mark, or even in a few rare incidents having sexual intercourse with the Devil. What is striking in this case is the ordering of the details, the fact that they are all present, and the sequence: the giving of oneself over to the Devil’s service from head to foot is followed by receiving the Devil’s mark, which is followed by carnal copulation. Even the sexual act follows a stereotype: his nature (i.e. penis) was cold, and several echoed Janet Hendrie’s comment that he ‘used her after the manner of a beast’.129 The meetings did not happen out in the field or in their homes (although some meetings did). The recent gatherings took place in the West Kirk of Culross, a deserted church which had been abandoned at least since the time of the Reformation. As much as Katherin Sands, Isobell Inglis, Janet Hendrie and Agnes Hendrie all made these confessions, and then admitted to them in court prior to their execution at the gallows between Leith and Edinburgh on July 29, 1675, we clearly have here the elite stereotype. That the trial was held before the High Court and the executions took place outside of the burgh, is of considerable importance. Whether the other dittays and confessions presented in Edinburgh in order to get commissions to try witches in the individual parishes would have contained the same stereotypical elements is uncertain. Perhaps they did. These, however, were not the kinds of concerns which we have heard time and time again raised in the individual parishes. These complaints centred on suggestions that someone was a charmer or had caused illness or misfortune. The difference is striking.

  Indeed it is only when we look beyond the stereotypical elements of the confession that we begin to see the forces that might have been at play. Katherin Sands confessed to being a witch for thirty-four years. She was the daughter of a woman who had already ‘suffered for the cryme of witchcraft’. Her economic station is unclear. What is referred to is the fact that she was suspected of poisoning her brother who had wrongfully taken all of the ‘goods and gear’ of her father, which were supposed to be divided equally among the children. It was this incident which caused her to enter the Devil’s service, after which she gave her brother a drink which caused his illness and death. (Although the timing of the drink filled with white powder is unclear, the fact that she was accused of entering the Devil’s service thirty-four years previously, suggests the quarrel had been a long one. It also suggests Katherin would have been at the very least middle aged and probably considerably older.) The other three women were widows. Issobel Inglis apparently entered th
e Devil’s service because her fields were not as rich as her neighbours, a condition the Devil promised to rectify: ‘he desired her to be of good cheer she would gett it also tymplie doen and with alse good furrows as her neighbours’.130 Janet Hendrie was aided in a quarrel. Agnes Hendrie was promised, after she complained that ‘she had not wherewith to live,’ that once she entered the Devil’s service ‘she should not want’.131 Although these details are scant, they clearly suggest that these women were at the bottom of the economic scale.132 They were not chosen at random, even in this confession which most resembles the elite notion of demonic witchcraft and the participation of witches in sabbats.133 Indeed, the event that brought them notice was assaulting Robert Prymrose while they were returning from one of their meetings at the West Kirk. One final note: there are some details in the confessions which it seems difficult to determine whether these were popular or elite ideas. Notably, Katherin Sands confessed that there were dead people at one of their meetings. Also, she describes a scene of ‘the devill dancing and playing and that the devill played to them on a pype and that frequentlie they had a blowe light when it was dark’.134 Is this an example of elite notions of a sabbat, or popular conceptions of a fairy gathering, or some blending of the two?