Witches of Fife

by Stuart MacDonald

  Knox’s role in the matter seems to have been confined to his preaching a sermon against this witch, ‘sche being set up at a pillar before him’, a fact recorded, not by his secretary but by the diarist James Melville.8

  While Knox’s presence, even in a minor role, draws our attention to this case that presence should not obscure some of the more revealing details. What is clear is this woman was searched for the witches’ mark yet from the description of the event it seems clear she was not being ‘pricked’. A deformity rather than an insensate area on her body was what was being sought. The search was visual and when a white cloth was discovered, all attention seems to have then focused on this. Again, it is not clear what those interrogating this woman believed they had found. ‘Craig’ may refer to either a human or an animal neck; the modifier ‘collore’ is more difficult to decipher.9 Was it something that looked like a collar that would go around someone’s neck, yet worn between her legs? Was it some kind of animal neck wrapped in cloth and tied with many knotted strings? Two things seem clear. First, it was not understood to be a poppet or figure which could be used to torment others (as in the popular image of ‘voodoo’ dolls). Second, it was clearly interpreted as proof of the guilt which had already been ascribed to her. This was a woman ‘who was accused of mony horrible thingis, prowen’. That proof included her unwillingness to forgive someone who had wronged her and her statement that she did not care if she went to heaven or hell. Her statement, ‘Now I have no hoip of myself’ when the collore craig was taken from her seems to have been interpreted as a confession that she was a witch. There is no notation that judicial torture was applied in this or other interrogations. Nor would such torture have been necessary. Her heretical views, her unneighbourliness, and the presence of the ‘collores craig’ seem to have been enough. She was condemned and executed.

  Four years later in January of 1576 the case of Marjory Smyth appears in the records of the kirk session of St. Andrews.10 Marjory was accused by Robert Grub of having layed her hands on Nanis Michel while she was giving birth and making Nanis ill. Marjory was called again to touch the sick woman. After she did Nanis became well. Marjory Smyth was also accused of harming cattle. When the ‘kow gaif na milk’ Marjory was suspected. Marjory Smyth does not appear to have been executed.11 The next case in the presbytery again began before the kirk session at St. Andrews. Bessie Robertsoune was called before the session in 1581 for never coming to church or taking communion, and was also delated for witchcraft.12 At the same time, Begis Dayes was called to appear for being ‘at discention and hatred’ with Bessie. Both were sentenced to be warned by the reader in church at the Sunday service, and were called to appear before the next session meeting. As is too often the case, no further notations can be found in the session Minutes.

  Both of the cases which occurred in 1590 came prior to the major outbreak related to North Berwick. We have already noted a case from Abdie in Cupar presbytery. Accusations were also made against Euphame Lochoir in Crail. The notation in the minutes of the presbytery is brief:

  Forasmekill as Euphame Lochoir in Craill is suspect of witschcraft the presbyterie ordanis everie minister to try the same sa far as thai can and speaciallie the Session of Craill to be diligent in trying the sad matter.13

  We do not know how diligent the session at Crail was; no other names, however, appear in regard to witchcraft within the presbytery’s records for this year. The cases involving Nans Murit in Abdie and Euphame Lochoir in Crail occurred in March and May respectively – months before the panic that has come to be known as the North Berwick witch-trials occurred.

  Several cases from the mid-1590s seem to be unconnected. In 1593 the presbytery asked Nichol Dalgleish, the minister at Pittenweem, to investigate the ‘secreit and quyet dealing of Janot Loquohor’ who was a suspected witch.14 Jonet Lochequoir (note the different spelling) appears again two years later in a list of condemned witches in St. Andrews parish. Jonet, Elspeth Gilchrist, and Agnes Melvill were all referred to as condemned witches.15 What is interesting is that the minute of the kirk session lists these names in passing. The concern is with those who have been consulting with these women. The consulters, Isobelle Anelle and others, were named and sentenced to make ‘public humiliation’ for their actions in consulting the condemned. At least in some of these cases it seems the women were seeking the ‘witch’ in order to obtain a cure for their spouse. All made the required repentance. It seems possible, perhaps likely, that Janot and Jonet were the same individual. This possibility is strengthened by the fact that Agnes Melville is known from the secondary literature as the ‘witch of Anstruther’ whose case dates from 1588.16 This record in the kirk session minute of St. Andrews may signify a clearing up of all the consulting known to have taken place with various area witches who had previously been executed. No distinction was made in the mind of the session between curse and cure, between black and white magic.

  The national hunt, 1597–98

  The year 1597 has long been recognised as a year of a major witch-hunt which extended throughout the regions of Scotland. In Fife, this hunt affected the Presbyteries of Kirkcaldy and St. Andrews. (See Map 12) The events in the latter began in May of 1597 and surrounded a known warlock (the term is used in the original records) by the name of David Zeman. Zeman had been passing ‘thoughout the cuntrie to do curis’ when he was apprehended and imprisoned. His imprisonment however had not prevented people from continuing to consult with and seek cures from him. In response, the presbytery sent two of its members, David Monepenny and James Melville, to go with the prior of Pittenweem to put Zeman to the knowledge of an assize and also to try those who had consulted with him ‘and with the rest of the witches’.17 Two weeks later Melville and the prior reported ‘that the bailzeis of Pittenweime had confessit that thai had giwin license to Walter Gourlay to tak Zeiman to his sonne’. The presbytery was not pleased that an incarcerated warlock had been allowed by the bailies to visit someone’s son! The bailies and Gourlay were ordered to appear before the next presbytery.18

  The search for those who had consulted with Zeman continued, then spread to involve the other suspected witches. At the May 26 meeting of the presbytery the members were asked how diligent they had been in seeking out those who had consulted witches. A list was given of individuals from Crail, Kilrenny and Carnbee. Included in the list of those from Kilrenny was Beatrix Adie.19 When Adie appeared along with Thomas Watson at the next meeting of the presbytery, it soon became clear that Adie herself was suspected as a witch:

  the said Thomas confessit that he passit to David Zeman hawing the milk tane fra his kow and desyrit him to go to Beatrix Adie and ask his kowis milk agane in godis name and so that milk was restorit againe.20

  Map 12 – Fife, 1597.

  David Zeman’s role in the eyes of the local populace as someone who could deduce who was responsible for a bewitchment was confirmed by the testimony of Walter Gourlay. He stated that he did not seek Zeman in order to make use of any cures, but to have him ‘tryit whiddir giff ane Margaret Smyth at Balcormo Myln had bewitchit his sonne or not’. Zeman confirmed Gourlay’s fears: Smith was the witch responsible for his son’s illness.21 Over the next two meetings others were also charged with consulting. One of these individuals, Catherine Smyth in Kilrenny, went to Zeman and again was told that it was Bettie Adie who was responsible for her troubles. She was told to confront Adie and ask for ‘thair helth in godis name, quhilk shoe did and so became weill’.22 As a result of this investigation David Zeman, Jonnett Willeamsoun, Jonnett Foggow and Beatrix Forgesoun were sent to an assize charged with various points of ‘witchcraft, charmerie, consultation, and murther be witchcraft’; those found guilty of consulting were barred from the benefits of the church until they had shown repentance de
emed acceptable by their various church sessions.23 It seems reasonable to assume that those accused as witches were among those ‘many witches’ executed at St. Andrews around this time.24

  The presbytery’s concern quickly turned from specific witches and consulters in their midst to the behaviour of one of their members, Nichol Dalgleish, the minister of Pittenweem. On July 7 Dalgleish informed the presbytery that the crown agent had asked him for the extract of the depositions against the witches who had been burned at St. Andrews. On the advice of his session, he gave this information.25 Two weeks later Dalgleish informed the same body that he had been ‘chargit with letteris of horning’ or been outlawed for supposedly withholding information on those accused as suspected witches, a charge which he denied.26 Dalgleish’s problems continued. The visitation of his session in October produced various allegations against him, including the suggestion that he was not diligent enough in seeking out the known witch Fritte Grutter within his parish. Fritte Grutter (or Cutter) had been known as a witch seven years prior to her death and been consulted by one Thomas Martin, a fact Dalgleish was charged with being aware of and yet doing nothing about.27 Another charge levelled against him was holding back depositions against witches and thus the ‘cloiking of that horrible syne’.28

  Amidst their concerns regarding the behaviour of Nichol Dalgleish, the presbytery continued other action against witches. Suspected witches were discovered in the parish of Largo in early August and several ministers were dispatched to examine the accused women.29 Later in the month a public fast and humiliation day was declared because of God’s judgements evidenced in not only the ‘pestilince and famine’ affecting the presbytery, but ‘also of the discoverie of the gryt empyre of the devill in this contrey be witchcraft’.30 As concerned as they were for the growth of evil, the presbytery had certain cautions. On September 1, 1598 they appealed to the King for him to cease travelling around the country with a witch (apparently in order to determine who other witches might be). The witch being referred to was probably Margaret Atkin of Balweary, who was exposed as a fraud by the end of the year.31

  The concern for witches within St. Andrews presbytery continued into 1598. In July of that year the presbytery began the search for one Patrick Stewart, alias Prich, who was suspected of being a witch. The formal accusation made in August against Stewart included no references to demonic pacts and indeed was fairly cautious. The charge was that Stewart had been involved in

  abusing and deceawing of the people, superstioun, scharming, professing of those thingis that giff they be done and practisit indeed is witchcraft.32

  Popular belief in the power of such charms can be seen by the fact that at the same time the presbytery was considering the case of Patrick Stewart, one of the ministers, Nichol Dalgleish, asked the presbytery what penalty should be ascribed to those found guilty of seeking charms or cures. The advice was that those who consulted with known witches should ‘satisfie as ane adulterer and the tym of continnowance to be according to thair repentance’.33

  Indeed it was a confession by Alesoun Peirie in October 1598 that she had consulted with Geillis Gray, a suspected witch, which led to a very unique incident in Fife. Advice was sought by the laird of Lathocker. The presbytery desired more information and asked every minister to ‘mak intimatioun of thair parochineris giff they had anything agains the said Alesoun and Geillis’.34 These and subsequent actions by the presbytery seem to have been inadequate for the laird. Andrew Duncane, the minister at Crail, reported at the end of February 1599 that the laird had come and taken the suspected witch Geillis out of his custody ‘and careit hir to his place of Lathocker and thair torturit hir, whairby now sho is become impotent and may not labour for hir living as sho wes wond’. Duncane sought advice on what should be done next.35 Clearly the laird of Lathocker treated the suspect brutally and tortured her. What should be recognised, is that there is no evidence of a commission or that this torture was part of a judicial process. Even the presbytery seems taken aback by what occurred. (Given that they had participated in the execution of several accused witches the year previous, such a reaction is worth noting.)

  Isolated cases: 1603–20

  A brief lull in witch-hunting ended in October 1603 when the minister of Largo, Johne Auchinlek, asked the presbytery for assistance in examining a suspected witch. After a delay caused by weather, Janet Small appeared before the presbytery on December 15.36 Janet confessed, claiming she had done all at the direction of Agnes Anstruther; unfortunately, the specific charges to which she confessed, all included in the delations, are not recorded.37 Agnes was summoned to the next meeting, but failed to appear. Her husband did and claimed his wife was ill. Those in whom the presbytery was interested had also expanded to include Beatrix and Christen Traillis.38 Christen apparently never appeared, but one week later Agnes, Beatrix and Janet were all ‘confrontit and seweralie examined as ther particular depositionis bearis’.39 The investigation continued, including the calling of a witness from the parish of ‘Petmoge’ to testify against Janet Small. In October of 1604, Janet was again being called to appear before the presbytery to answer charges.40 Her fate is unknown.

  The next indication of witch-hunting in this part of Fife comes over a decade later. In January of 1620 a commission was granted naming Margaret Wod, already in custody in Crail as a suspected witch. The commission noted that her guilt ‘seems established ‘by mony pregnant presumptionis, lykliehoodis, and circumstances of hir tryall and examinatioun’.41 The same situation faced Marjorie Pattersone, an ‘indweller’ of Crail, four years later. Long suspected as a witch, she was held in the tolbooth. Named in both commissions are the bailies and a Sir James Lermond of Balcolmie.42 A similar commission was granted against Margaret Callender to the bailies of St. Andrews and other individuals, in January, 1630.43 The early period of the witch-hunt in this presbytery involved sporadic, generally isolated accusations against suspected witches.

  A major hunt: 1643–45

  The major hunt that affected St. Andrews Presbytery occurred in the period from 1643 to 1645. A major witch-hunt had begun in Dunfermline in January 1643. During this year the hunt spread throughout Scotland but the major area involved remained Fife. Our first indication that something significant was occurring in St. Andrews Presbytery comes in the minutes of the presbytery in August of 1643. The presbytery appointed three members to try to have the judge and bailies in Anstruther delay the execution of ‘some witches’ so that the appointed delegates may speak with them.44 At the beginning of its next meeting, the presbytery stated:

  It is thought fitting, that ministers within this Presbyterie doe advertise the Presbyterie befor any witches with them be put to execution.45

  The implication seems to be that the minister of Anstruther was at the very least aware of what was occurring in his parish. The presbytery wanted to become involved. Delegations were established at that same meeting, some to go to Anstruther Wester to witness the execution of ‘some witches’ and others to try to speak to witches who had been apprehended at Anstruther Easter and Crail.46 This pattern was repeated at the next meeting, only this time those to be questioned prior to execution were from St. Andrews.47 A delegation of three was again sent to Anstruther Wester to confer with those apprehended as witches. At the same time they were to give advice to the judge as to whether there was enough evidence against Isobell Dairsie for incarcerating and trying her.48 Delegations were sent to St. Andrews to speak to the apprehended witches and ‘sie if they can bring them to any confession’49 and to Crail in order to give advice as to whether or not there was enough evidence to apprehend and try two suspected witches.50

  Thus by early September, the presbytery of St. Andrews was involved in a full fledged witch-hunt, a witch-hunt which while not begun by the presbytery, clearly had its support and interest. The continu
al sending of delegations to try to bring witches to confession and/or give advice as to whether or not there was enough evidence demonstrates this interest. The way in which Isobell Dairsie’s name enters the record gives support to the suspicion that the ministers were seeking through these interrogations to discover the names of other ‘witches’. From the fragmentary evidence it also seems that Isobell was poor and without either means or family who would pay her costs while she was imprisoned.51 The presbytery was aware that the forces let loose in this hunt had potential dangers including the naming of the innocent. At the September 6 meeting, the presbytery declared that it had been informed

  that ther be some quo slander these for witches, against quhom ther is neither presumption nor dilation, appoints such to be censured by the Sessions quher they remaine, as most notorious slanderers. As also ordaines such as conceales any presumption of any quho are apprehended, qhuen it shall come to light. They are apponted to be censured by Sessions also.52

  That the latter concern, the withholding of information against suspected witches, was as serious as the potential slander of innocent women seems clear from an incident that occurred at the same meeting. A man was brought before the court and charged with riding upon the Lord’s day. His claim that he was merely riding to communion was dismissed, as he was in fact riding in order to gain Lord Burghley’s support in having his wife Margaret Balfour, who was one of the women held as a witch, set free. He was found guilty of breaking the sabbath and ordered to obey whatever punishment was determined by his session.53 The presbytery also sought in January of 1644 to have the government grant a general commission for the ‘apprehending trying and judging of such as are or selbe delated for witches within the sherrifdom’.54 This would have allowed them to proceed to try and execute suspects without seeking commissions for each individual.