58.
Ibid., 330. Ross argues, based upon the fact that they confessed, that they were probably executed. This seems a reasonable assumption. His discussion moves into a discussion of various instruments of torture, after which he makes the telling point: ‘It is but fair to say, however, that I have seen nothing to show that any instruments of torture beyond the Brodder’s needles were ever used in the cases that occurred in Aberdour,’ 331.
59.
April 26, 1649, John Machdoch (2540); May 13, Chritian Smith (3201); May 29, Isobell Peacock (2541) & Bessie Wilson (2542); July 15, Bessie Mortoun (3207) & Marjorie Phillip (3208) first mentioned. Data from the SWHDB. However the trial in front of the witch-finder does not seem to have taken place until sometime between November 6 – when Marjorie was still being tried – and the notation of her execution in the Kirk Session records, minute of December 8, 1649. Sources: NAS CH2/592/1; CH2/105/1; Henderson, Extracts from the Kirk Session, 31. Benson, South-West Fife.
60.
Dunfermline KS, April 29, 1649. NAS CH2/592/1 f89, f90.
61.
STACUPR, 130.
62.
STACUPR, 130
63.
STACUPR, 130, 132, 134, 135.
64.
STACUPR, 136–137.
65.
STACUPR, 137–141, 150.
66.
STACUPR, 143, 144.
67.
STACUPR, 144, 146, 150.
68.
STACUPR, 147–149.
69.
STACUPR, 149.
70.
STACUPR, 150.
71.
SYNFIFE, 168.
72.
STACUPR, 150.
73.
Cases 958–962. The source is RPC vol. 13, 49–50.
74.
Case 2466. Kinloch, The Diary of Mr John Lamont of Newton, 1649–71, 6.
75.
Cook, Annals of Pittenweem, 49. Entry for July 31, 1643.
76.
Ibid., 49–50. Those known to have been executed in 1643 include the wife of John Dawson (2450); Margaret Horsburgh (2454); the wife of John Crombie (2455); the wife of Thomas Wanderson (2473); the wife of Archibald Wanderson (2472). Several women were executed as witches in Pittenweem during this hunt. There were an unknown number of others executed in that year, as well as executions in the following year.
CHAPTER NINE
The Witches of Fife
Our information about the witches of Fife is fragmentary, a reality that has become evident in telling the story of how the witch-hunt affected the various parts of the shire. In many cases we have only a name listed in a commission, or a name mentioned in passing. In other situations we do not have even the name but merely a reference that a witch was executed or tried. In other circumstances we have far more detail, although admittedly the details vary in each situation. It is time to see, based upon this variety of information, if we can construct a picture of what a Fife witch looked like. Our discussion will be both quantitative and qualitative, involving both numbers and stories. We will also turn our attention to a few cases where significant information does exist.
Each society defines its ‘witches’ in a particular way. Scotland in the sixteenth and seventeenth century lived with a particularly harsh understanding of who a witch was. Traditional distinctions between white and black magic had been obscured, and under the Scottish witchcraft Act of 1563 even consulting with a witch was deemed worthy of the death penalty.1 The crime of witchcraft was, in theory at least, a crime involving heresy or beliefs at odds with the fundamental religious beliefs of the society. A pact with the Devil was a crucial element in the definition of the crime by both church and state.2 As Brian Levack has stated:
The emergence of the belief that witches were not merely magicians but also Devil-worshippers changed the nature of the crime of witchcraft. It made witches not simply felons, similar to murderers and thieves, but heretics and apostates, intrinsically evil individuals who had rejected their Christian faith and had decided instead to serve God’s enemy, the Devil.3
In our discussion of the witches from the various presbyteries in Fife we have seen this concern that the suspect had rejected her faith and entered into the service of the Devil. Much of this concern, however, was expressed in documents which originated from the central government, in particular the text of commissions to put a particular suspect to a trial. The accusations which the local populace put forward expressed a different understanding of the crime of witchcraft. Their concerns were with the acts of malefice or harmful magic which the suspected witch had used against her neighbours, often over an extensive period of time. These women, and occasionally men, were understood to have remarkable powers to harm and heal.4 In a society where medical knowledge was limited, the ability to heal humans and livestock was crucial. How, then, did one distinguish between knowledge of folk medicine and casting spells? In the records of the sessions and presbyteries there seems to have been a fine line between what was considered charming and what was considered an act of witchcraft. Both activities were considered immoral by the church and were brought before the particular church court. Consulting with charmers or witches was also considered a crime worthy of censure. It is difficult sometimes to understand how the decisions were made between what punishment the suspect should receive. As we have seen, suspects were tried and executed without there being any explicit reference to a pact with the Devil. The crime of witchcraft thus, seems to have been rather elastic, being defined by public mood and the possible tensions of the time. It is also worth considering that certain qualities of the suspect may have made them more vulnerable to the more serious charge of witchcraft. The categories which need to be considered are those of gender, age and social status or class. The nature of our sources, unfortunately, limits the extent to which we can use specific numbers to address certain questions. What will become clear, however, is that throughout the hunt most of those accused of witchcraft fit a particular stereotype. They were generally older women who lived on the margins of their communities. This chapter will discuss the characteristics of the Fife witch, beginning with two fascinating examples of individuals accused of witchcraft.
The factors of gender and social status were evident in one of the last accusations of witchcraft in Fife, that made against Elizabeth Dick of Anstruther in St. Andrews presbytery, in 1701. Before the session, Elizabeth admitted that she had gone to the mill in order to seek charity (alms). After being refused she left. Those present at the mill (James Osler, the miller Alexander Grub, and Peter Olyphant’s wife who had refused to give Elizabeth alms) claimed that after Elizabeth left the grain which was being milled turned from white to red. Elizabeth was sent for and returned. She stated that all she did at this point was to say ‘God be in the mill’ and sit down and pray ‘God have an care of me for my heart is louping’ after which everything returned to normal. The witnesses all agreed that after Elizabeth’s return the grain turned back to its normal colour. Peter Olyphant’s wife added one, perhaps crucial, detail: she stated that she had been the one who had sent for Elizabeth to return, and she had given her a handful of meal before the prayer was uttered.5 While Elizabeth Dick may not have been typical, clearly the ability to, or even the perceived ability to, curse and remove curses made individuals more likely to respond to an appeal for charity.
This ability to be able to harm or heal was one of the characteristics attributed to witches in Fife. We have seen this in some instances as we have examined the accused from the various presbyteries. We see this with some fascinating details in one of the most complete cases for Fife, that of Alison Dick and her husband William Coke. Alison Dick was first investigated as a witch in 1621, when the session noted her appearance before them on ‘sundrie poynts of witchcraft,’ which she denied.6 Two years later, the session noted expenses for wardin
g both Alison Dick and William Coke. It seems likely, given this expense, that their incarceration was recent.7 The concern was not necessarily with witchcraft, but related to the way in which both Alison and William appeared to treat others in the community. Public intimation from the pulpit was also made declaring that anyone having any information regarding their behaviour should come forward. Insufficient evidence seems to have been forthcoming, for in June they were released upon a bond of caution:
Comperit William Cok and Alisone Dick his spous, quha of ther own frie will and fredome, actit bund and obleist not to live sic a vitious and licencious lyff, be cursing, swearing, and abusing of the nychtboris of this burgh, in sic sort as they have done heirtofeir. Quhilk, if they doe, they bind and obleis them to be content to be banisht this burgh and liberties, thairof, and iff ever thairafter they be fund to resort within the same, they are content to be scourgit through the towne and banisht. And the said baillies and consaill ordanis them to stand in the jogis on Seterday nixt fra auct horis to twa afternon.8
Publicly exposed to the community as troublemakers, their reputations had clearly been established by this point.
A decade later Alison Dick and William Coke again found themselves before the session, this time accused as witches. The first appearance was by Alison Dick on September 17, 1633, when she was accused of some activities ‘tending to witchcraft’. She denied the charges, but witnesses came forward who supported the charge. Alexander Savage swore that he heard William Coke say to her ‘Thou has put down many ships; it has been gude for the people of Kirkcaldie, that they had knit a stone about thy neck and drowned thee’. Another witness, Andrew Nicol, claimed to have heard an equally sharp retort from Coke to Dick, stating that it would have been better for the women of the burgh if he had been dead, then adding ‘I shall cause all the world to wonder upon thee’.9 More evidence of this rather vitriolic public spat came forward. The female witnesses all agreed, with some variations, to Jean Adamson’s claim that Alison Dick had said to Coke:
Thief! Thief! what is this what I have been doing? keeping thee thretty years from meikle evil doing. Many pretty men hast thou putten down both in ships and boats; thou has gotten the woman’s song laid now. Let honest men puddle and work as they like, if they please not thee well, they shall not have meikle to the fore when they die.10
Both in content and by the fact that these comments were made so publicly, these harsh speeches were considered the business of session, and seen as ‘tending to witchcraft’.
When the session met the following week on September 24, 1633, the focus shifted away from the quarrelling of the couple to the acts that they, particularly Alison, were alleged to have done. Janet Allen, a fisherman’s widow, stated that after she had given birth Alison had arrived and asked for some ‘sour bakes’. When Janet would not give her any, Alison replied by saying that ‘Your bairns shall beg yet’ (a prediction that apparently had come true). Janet’s husband was drawn into the quarrel, which rapidly escalated from harsh retorts from Alison, to the husband striking Alison. This physical injury to Alison caused her to curse Janet Allen’s husband, saying ‘she would cause him rue it; and she hopet to see the powarts (tadpoles) bigg in his hair; and within half a year, he was casten away, and his boat, and perished’.11 Alison and William’s quarrelsome nature can be seen from the fact that the next to testify against them was their own daughter-in-law, Janet Saunders. William had interrupted Janet while she was weeping out of fear for the safety of her husband. William scolded her and said that Janet’s husband would return ‘naked and bare’, again a prediction which came true two days later, the ship having been ‘casten away’.12 The next witness, Jean Adamson, told a similar tale of being interrupted, this time by Alison, while crying over her husband who was feared lost at sea. Alison Dick offered comfort, saying that the ship was loading timber in Norway and would soon be home. Again, the prediction proved true. The last witness to appear on this day, Katherin Spens, claimed that Alison had spoken ill of her husband, after which her husband had said to Katherin that ‘If I had spoken two words to her the last time she was in the steeple, she would never have gotten out of it’.13
The tensions within this family were demonstrated in a record also dated September 24, when Janet Saunders, the daughter-in-law, was accused of slander in calling Janet Brown a witch. Janet Brown was Alison Dick’s daughter. Janet Saunders spoke of the incident, in which Alison had come in while she was in despair, wondering how she would feed her children after her husband’s death. Janet’s testimony was that Alison had stated that Janet Brown had ‘done you little kindness’ following the sinking. When Alison admitted to this, the charge of slander was seemingly dropped.14 No new evidence was heard that day, however, the session delegated James Millar to ride to Preston ‘for the man who tries the witches’.15
This individual was Thomas Robertson the executioner from Culross, who was paid 12 shillings for his efforts. Meanwhile, Alison Dick was held in the steeple.16 Further evidence was produced against her before the session on October 8, 1633. After being refused the money she asked from Issobel Hay, Alison had stated that Issobel’s husband’s voyage would suffer great loss. Furthermore Issobel charged that Alison had come into her house, apparently uninvited for Issobel was not there, and taken Issobel’s sister by the hands. Since that time the ‘maiden had never been in her right wits’. Another quarrel was recounted. Robert Whyt had once struck William Coke. After this, Alison came to Robert, quarrelled with him, and told him he would regret it. Robert replied, ‘What sayest thou? I shall give you as much – you witch.’ ‘Witches take your wit and the grace from you’ she responded and according to the witness, indeed that very night, Robert Whyt became ‘bereft of his wits’. The matter did not end there. Robert’s daughter Janet challenged Alison as the cause of her father’s illness. Janet declared the response was
Let him pay me then, and he will be the better and if he pays me not he will be the worse, for there is none that does me wrong, but I go to my god and complains upon them and within four and twenty hours, I will get amends of them.
Janet’s testimony then turned to her own misfortune, a painful thigh and leg, for which she claimed Alison was responsible. A servant swore that Alison Dick had said she had ‘gotten a grip’ on the thigh, and would soon have the leg.17
It was at this juncture that Alison Dick, who had until this point denied all charges, began to make her confession. She first told of another quarrel between a skipper, David Patterson, and her husband William Coke. The quarrel over payment for carrying gear aboard was followed by William cursing David. Inevitably misfortune occurred, including the death of David and all but two or three of his crew. William Coke also fought with his own son. The son failed to give his father his bonnaillie (farewell toast) before leaving on a voyage. William’s reply was to say ‘The devil be with him if ever he come home again, he shall come home naked and bare’, which of course came true. ‘Naked and bare’ in this context seems to mean impoverished for John Whyt adds testimony that while the ship was lost, he was able to save all of the men from the ship, including William Coke the younger. It was the calm two hours in which they had been able to rescue the men amidst a seven day gale that Whyt noted and the fact that the younger William Coke was the first to come on board. At this juncture, the minister James Simson demanded of Alison ‘when, and how she feel in covenant with the devill’. The previous testimony of William’s wrongdoings now snapped into focus, for she blamed him:
she answered, her husband mony times urged her, and she yielded only two or three years since. The manner was thus: he gave her, soul and body, quick and quidder full to the devil and bad her do so. But she in her heart said, god guide me. And then she said to him,
I shall do any thing that ye bid me: and so she gave herself to the devil in the foresaid words.
This confession was seen as a dramatic moment in this case. Those present were noted, including James Miller who was acting as clerk in keeping the minutes, as was the time of ‘four hours at even’ and the fact that the confession was given ‘freely without compulsion’. Alison Dick had confessed. The investigation continued.18
While Alison painted her husband as the villain, many in the community saw her as equally troublesome and someone not to be crossed. Christian Ronaldson recounted that she had once rented rooms to Alison in the close. On hearing this, her husband declared ‘he would not have the devil to dwell above him in the close’, and had Alison removed. Alison informed Christian that her husband would soon sail and lose his goods. This occurred when David Whyt’s ship was lost, including stock owned by Christian Ronaldon’s husband. Marjory Marshall also had a confrontation with Alison prior to the loss of David Whyt’s ship. Alison had brought Marjory’s husband’s clothes from the Castle-haven. When Marjory offered 12d in payment Alison demanded more and a dispute broke out. Marjory claimed there were not that many clothes. Alison retorted ‘they shall be fewer the next time’. The ship sank shortly thereafter.19
Alison’s begging caused a rift between her and Janet Whyt. The incident began when Janet and Katherine Wilson were sitting together at Katherine’s house when Alison arrived and begged for silver. Janet would give none and fled into the house. Katherine followed, then came out to Alison and gave her a piece of bread. Janet suggested they also give her a plack (a small coin, worth about 4d), for which she would later reimburse Katherine. When Katherine gave this to Alison, she asked if this was all, then said
Witches of Fife Page 22