Witches of Fife
Page 34
After researching Fife, I would only add the fact that the local records sometimes even fail to mention witches who we know existed from the central records. Clearly we have not yet uncovered all of the cases of witchcraft or charming in Scotland in this period. The Source Book lists all of the cases discovered as of its publication, an achievement that deserves recognition.
In terms of its internal organization, the Source Book listed the cases chronologically by court level: Court of Justicary, Circuit Courts, Parliamentary Commissions, Committee of Estates and Privy Council Commissions. To this another section was added – ‘Other’. These included all other references, references which often ultimately led back through a printed source to local session, presbytery, or burgh records. The ‘Other’ cases comprise over one quarter of the Source Book (cases 2209–3069, or 800 of 3,000). While the Source Book included some tables and sample transcripts, the true heart of the project was the listing of the cases. The information in this list was standardized. Information could include: Name, Date, Place, Sex, Marital Status, Trial Status, Fate, the source of the information, and a notation of whether this case had newly been discovered, or had been listed in Black’s A Calendar of Cases of Witchcraft in Scotland 1510–1727. As well, a case number was assigned to each ‘case’. The definition of ‘case’ is important: each case was an indication of a reference to witchcraft and might include more than one individual. As well, some individuals appear in the Source Book more than once, and there is some clear duplication (Ibid., xi). Spelling was taken from the original documents as much as possible. Information on the social status of the accused, available in only a few cases, was dealt with seperately (Ibid., xi).
Several of the Fields were given specific codes. For example, ‘M’ or ‘F’ (or ‘U’ for unknown) referred to the gender of the accused. Marital Status, Trial Status, and Fate were also alloted codes. Unfortunately, the large number of ‘unknowns’ which show up in some of these categories make any statistical analysis suspect. The coding for Trial Status also has some problems. The Source Book explains this as ‘The level to which the case was taken’, meaning (one assumes) the highest level within the judicial system, but the codes themselves seem more interested in the nature of the case:
T
taken to trial
Proc.
Preliminary proceedings taken in pre-trial processes
Men
Mentioned as a witch by an accused person
Com
Privy Council or Parliamentary Commission to named individuals for a local trial (Ibid., 1)
Unfortunately this confusion seems to have slipped into the coding, in particular the use of the ‘Men’ (mentioned) code. In the research in Fife, it was clear that sometimes this code had been used when someone had been mentioned in a document, although not necessarily by an accused or dying witch. A miscellaneous category would have been useful, but one only discovers these things after having completed a project. Unfortunately this confusion means we can not test one of Larner’s arguments – that most people were accused by other suspects (i.e. ‘Men’ or mentioned). This argument was made in the lecture ‘Natural and Unnatural Methods of Witchcraft Control’, in Witchcraft and Religion, 138.
Discussions of the strengths and weaknesses of the Source Book can be found, not only in the introduction to the volume itself, but in Enemies of God (35–39) and in Bruce Lenman’s review of the Source Book from the Scottish Historical Review, 1979 (197–200). One criticism that was not made, which indeed should have been, was the fact that the ‘Place’ category was so unevenly dealt with. The ‘place’ might be a shire, a town, a parish, or even a hamlet. Again, this is one of the errors in design which is only discovered after a project of this nature has been completed: the difficulty was that it made using the information very awkward in terms of any local or regional studies. The Source Book was also organized in such a way that it would suit some researchers (those who wanted to work on particular documentary sources, such as central records) better than others who would like to study witch-hunting chronologically, or in some other way (i.e. investigating all of the male witches).
While working on an essay for my Master’s in 1981, I not only discovered the value of the Source Book but also was frustrated by how it was organized. The notion of running this data back through a computer and reshuffling it emerged. Fortunately other studies intervened for the computer technology at the time would have been less than adequate. When work began on the thesis part of the Doctorate in 1990, the first project was to re-enter the Source Book into a computer database (Borland’s dBase VI version 1.0, later 1.1, were used.) The coding and the basic structure was maintained. Changes, however came to be made in the section on ‘Place’. After the initial entry this category was divided into three: Shire; Village; and Hamlet. These names remain somewhat misleading. ‘Village’ was often, in actual fact a parish, a burgh or a town. The intent, however, was to try to see if we could at least place as many cases as possible within a particular shire. For some cases, where the shire was clearly stated, this was easy. In other situations this involved searching through Gazetteers to determine where a certain ‘village’ or ‘hamlet’ might be. Not all of the information could be placed within a particular shire. In some situations the place names were obscure; in others the name was too common. There were too many ‘Newburghs’ to decide to which shire it belonged. Some of these situations later resolved themselves once further research had been done. For example, the particular Newburgh from which these cases sprang was the parish in Fife (Michael Wasser was helpful in pointing out a particular case from this parish, which led to the realization there were others). Still, it was possible to place 2,766 cases out of a total of 3,089 (or 89.54%) within particular shires, thus allowing a picture to emerge as to where witch-hunting was most intense in Scotland. This research proved the groundwork for chapter 2. Spelling of place names also had to be standardized. As much as possible, modern spellings were chosen (i.e. Bruntisland became Burntisland). Within Fife, this same process was followed for the parishes, which formed the basis for the rest of the study.
In creating the database, new categories were included, mostly for the convenience of research. A new field was added to allow cases involving more than one individual to be quickly identified. Another field was added which notes which gazeteer had listed a village or hamlet as belonging to a particular shire. The other significant changes in the data included in the Source Book involved corrections and adding additional information. Many corrections were made, including incorporating the pencilled corrections noted in the copy of the Source Book held in the reading room of the Scottish Record Office (now National Records of Scotland). Additional cases were discovered in the course of doing intensive research on Fife. These come from the ‘local records’ which the compilers of the Source Book noted. Thanks to the research of Michael Wasser, who has worked extensively with the central government records, further cases have been discovered. It has not been possible to enter these into the database at this point. None of these additional cases seems to be from Fife. The information used in the thesis and this book was that which existed in the SWHDB as of June 1, 1997. This number is expected to continue to grow. For example, Michael Graham’s recent book The Uses of Reform makes references to several witches from Anstruther West in a period when no cases were known from this particular village. At least some of these individuals (Agnes Melvill, Jonnett Foggow) are already included in the SWHDB. A careful look at the source which Graham has discovered will be needed before we can assess how many new cases are involved. This is still an exciting discovery. More such discoveries are anticipated. A new research project may soon begin in Scotland which will quickly supersede the SWHDB. If so, this is wonderful news. The ea
sier it is for researchers to ask questions about the Scottish witch-hunt, the better.
The corrections, additions and changes have reached the stage where it no longer seems reasonable to refer to the end product as the Source Book. Instead, the name Scottish Witch-Hunt Data Base (SWHDB) has been chosen to reflect not only the changes, but the fact that new information can be entered and (hopefully) made available to researchers. The intent is to create an on-going list of known cases of witch-craft in Scotland which can be added to, corrected, updated and – of equal importance – sorted in different ways for the benefit of researchers. The SWHDB clearly was dependent upon the Source Book, just as the Source Book was dependent upon Black’s Calendar. At the moment, the SWHDB continues to use the categories of the Source Book. In future, some additional categories might be added, mostly in the area of the codes. For example, cases where someone accused as a witch took their accuser before a session and charged that individual with slander are mixed in with cases where the suspect was directly charged with being a witch. Adding a category of ‘sl’ for slander is one possibility. It might also be helpful if we could sort out which cases involved ‘charming’, or break down the category of ‘other’ to refer to the origin being a presbytery, a session, a burgh court, or similar kinds of references. Redoing the entire Source Book would require enormous resources; finding ways of incorporating new ideas and information gradually is a more feasible approach.
This researcher’s sincere thanks go to Christina Larner, Christopher Lee and Hugh McLachlan for their work in compiling and creating A Source Book of Scottish Witchcraft. The decision to move forward with a database that continues to expand and be used is intended to continue their efforts.
Maps, Graphs, and Tables
The Maps, Graphs, and Tables used in this book all arise out of the data from the Scottish Witch-Hunt Data Base. Moving from the SWHDB to a particular map or table involves at least one intermediary step. For example, to create the Graph 1 which shows the pattern of the witch-hunt on a national scale it was necessary to count how many cases had occurred in each year, then enter this information into a spreadsheet program. A similar process was used in creating the maps: the number of cases in each shire (or parish) was determined and then this information was transferred into the specific map. The following computer software programs were originally used in the research and production of this book:
database
dBase IV 1.1
spreadsheet
ASEASYAS 5.0
graphics
Corel 3.0, Corel Presentations 8.0
Software has exploded over the last seven years, both in terms of features and the size and speed of computer required to operate it. It has not been possible to explore whether a later version of software might have achieved a task more efficiently. In several instances ‘upgrading’ required more time than would have been saved. The data pertaining to specific maps is listed below.
Map 2. Scotland, 1560–1760, cases per shire
The data is in table 1. This map is unique in that the new cases discovered while doing research in Fife are not included. It was felt that these cases would alter the ranking of Fife in relation to the other Shires of Scotland. The assumption is that when more work is done on local records in these areas, the number of cases will also increase. The number listed under Fife in brackets (420) represents all of the cases from Fife listed in the SWHDB.
Map 3. Scotland, 1649
Unknown (63); Aberdeen (2); Ayr (2); Banff (2); Berwick (18); Bute (5); Edinburgh (31); Fife (70), 45 in the SBSW; Forfar (4); Haddington (110); Lanark (14); Linlithgow (15); Peebles (12); Renfrew (6); Roxburgh (13); Selkirk (6); Stirling (1); Wigtown (1). Total cases, 376.
Map 4. Scotland, 1650
Unknown (35); Aberdeen (3); Ayr (23); Berwick (5); Bute (1); Dumbarton (4); Dumfries (9); Edinburgh (9); Fife (6); Forfar (17); Haddington (8); Kirkcubright (1); Lanark (9); Moray (1); Peebles (13); Renfrew (5); Roxburgh (3); Selkirk (2).
Total cases, 154.
Map 5. Fife, 1560–1710
Unknown (5)- Byrehill (1); Abbotshall (1); Abdie (4); Aberdour (21); Anstruther (5); Anstruther Easter (2); Auchterdirran (1); Auchtermuchty (1); Auchtertool (1); Balmerino (2); Burntisland (18); Carnbee (1); Collessie (5);Crail (12); Creich (3); Culross (44); Cupar (3); Dalgetty (9); Dunbog (1); Dunfermline (39); Dunino (1); Dysart (31); Falkland (3); Flisk (4); Forgan (2); Inverkeithing (51); Kilmany (4); Kilrenny (2); Kinghorn (3); Kinglessie (1); Kirkcaldy (36); Largo (5); Logie (1); Markinch (1); Monimail (1); Newburgh (12); Pittenweem (28); St. Andrews (22); St. Monans (2); Torryburn (21); Wemyss (10). Total, 420
Map 6. Fife, 1649
Unknown (1); Aberdour (7); Balmerino (1); Burntisland (13); Culross (1); Dalgetty (9); Dunfermline (9); Dysart (1); Inverkeithing (28). Total, 70.
Map 7. Fife, 1624
Culross (9); Torryburn (1)
Map 8. Fife, 1630
Dysart (11); St.Andrews (1); Torryburn (1); Wemyss (1).
Total, 14.
Map 10. Fife, 1662
Auchtermuchty (1); Abdie (3); Collessie (5); Creich (1); Culross (1); Dunbog (1); Falkland (1); Flisk (4); Forgan (2); Kilmany (2); Newburgh (5). Total, 26.
Map 12. Fife, 1597
Kilrenny (1); Kirkcaldy (15); Largo (1); Pittenweem (5); Abbotshall (1); Burntisland (2); St. Andrews (1).
Total, 26.
Map 14. Fife, 1643
Anstruther (3); Anstruther easter (1); Crail (6); Culross (9); Dunfermline (18); Dysart (1); Kinghorn (2); Markinch (1); Pittenweem (5); St. Andrews (4); Torryburn (1). Total, 51.
Map 16. Fife, 1621
Crail (1); Culross (1); Inverkeithing (6); Kirkcaldy (2).
Total, 10.
APPENDIX C
The Witches of Fife
(listed chronologically)
Date
Accused
Parish
Case
0/0/0
Curate of Anstruther
Anstruther
3034
0/0/0
Helen Eliot
Culross
2939
0/0/0
Margaret Reid
Kirkcaldy
3033
0/0/0
Katherine Shaw
Kirkcaldy
3053
0/0/0
Patrick Adamson
St. Andrews
3032
0/0/0
Archbishop Sharp
St. Andrews
3035
0/0/0
Grissel Anderson
Torryburn
2981
0/0/0
Euphan Stirt
Torryburn
2983
0/0/1563
Woman (1 of 4)
?
2214
0/0/1563
Woman (1 of 4)
?
2215
0/0/1563
Agnes Mullikine
Dunfermline
6
0/0/1563
Witches
St. Andrews
2220
0/0/1569
Nic Neville
St. Andrews
2219
0/0/1569
William Stewart (Lyon King of Arms)
St. Andrews
2221
28/4/1572
St. Andrews
2222
25/1/1576
Marjorye Smytht
St. Andrews
2223
26/10/1581
Bessy Robertsoune
St. Andrews
2225
28/5/1588
Alesoun Pierson
Byrehill
13
0/0/1590
Nans Murit
Abdie
3090
0/0/1590
Euphame Locoir
Crail
3091
15/3/1593
; Janot Loquhour
Pittenweem
3092
10/9/1595
Elspot Gilchrist
St. Andrews
2239
10/9/1595
Jonet Lochequoir
St. Andrews
2238
10/9/1595
Agnes Melvill
St. Andrews
2237
0/0/1597
Margaret Atkin
Abbotshall
2308
0/0/1597
Janet Smyth
Burntisland
2307
5/5/1597
David Zeman
Pittenweem
3093
16/5/1597
Bettie Adie
Kilrenny
3097
9/6/1597
Jonett Foggow
Pittenweem
3095
9/6/1597
Beatrix Forgesoun
Pittenweem
3096
9/6/1597
Jonet Willeamsoun
Pittenweem
3094
13/7/1597
(Many Witches)
St. Andrews
2294
26/7/1597
Jonnett Finlasoun
Burntisland
877
3/8/1597
(‘The Weimen Accused’)
Largo
3098
11/8/1597
Margaret Elder