At this time, while the country was suffering from famine, there was a
renewing of the Covenant with fasting and humiliation in St Andrews
presbytery. ‘After this exercise,’ says James Melville, one of those
chiefly concerned in ordering it, ‘we wanted not a remarkable effect.’
‘God extraordinarily provided victuals out of all other countries,
in sic store and abundance as was never seen in this land before;’
without which ‘thousands had died for hunger,’ ‘for,’ he goes on to
say, ‘notwithstanding of the infinite number of bolls of victual that
cam hame from other parts, all the harvest quarter of that year, the
meal gave aucht, nine, and ten pounds the boll, and the malt eleven and
twal, and in the south and west parts many died.’
* * * * *
[Sidenote: JUNE 7.
1596.]
Napier, still brooding over the dangers from popery, devised at this
time certain inventions which he thought would be useful for defending
the country in case of invasion. One was a mirror like that of
Archimedes, which should collect the beams of the sun, and reflect them
concentratedly in one ‘mathematical point,’ for the purpose of burning
the enemy’s ships. Another was a similar mirror to reflect artificial
fire. A third was a kind of shot for artillery, not to pass lineally
through an enemy’s host, destroying only those that stand in its way,
but which should ‘range abroad within the whole appointed place, and
not departing furth of the place till it had executed his [its] whole
strength, by destroying those that be within the bounds of the said
place.’ A fourth, the last, was a closed and fortified carriage to
bring harquebussiers into the midst of an enemy--a superfluity, one
would think, if there was any hopefulness in the third of the series.
‘These inventions, besides devices of sailing under the water, with
divers other stratagems for harming of the enemies, by the grace of
God and work of expert craftsmen, I hope to perform.’[212] So wrote
Napier at the date noted in the margin. Sir Thomas Urquhart describes
the third of the devices as calculated to clear a field of four miles’
circumference of all living things above a foot in height: by it, he
said, the inventor could destroy 30,000 Turks, without the hazard of
a single Christian. He adds that proof of its powers was given on a
large plain in Scotland, to _the destruction of a great many cattle
and sheep_--a particular that may be doubted. ‘When he was desired by
a friend in his last illness to reveal the contrivance, his answer was
that, for the ruin and overthrow of man, there were too many devices
already framed, which if he could make to be fewer, he would, with
his might, endeavour to do; and that therefore, seeing the malice
and rancour rooted in the heart of mankind will not suffer them to
diminish, the number of them, by any concert of his, should never be
increased.’[213]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: JUNE 24.]
John, Master of Orkney, was tried for the alleged crime of attempting
to destroy the life of his brother the Earl of Orkney, first by
witchcraft, and secondly by more direct means. The case broke down,
and would not be worthy of attention in this place, but for the
nature of the means taken to inculpate the accused. It appeared that
the alleged witchcraft stood upon the evidence of a confession wrung
from a woman called Alison Balfour, residing at Ireland, a village in
Orkney, who had been executed for that imaginary crime in December
1594. The counsel for the Master shewed that, when this poor woman made
her ‘pretended confession,’ as it might well be called, she had been
kept forty-eight hours in the _cashielaws_--an instrument of torture
supposed to have consisted of an iron case for the leg, to which fire
was gradually applied, till it became insupportably painful. At the
same time, her husband, a man of ninety-one years of age, her eldest
son and daughter, were kept likewise under torture, ‘the father being
in the _lang irons_ of fifty stane wecht,’ the son fixed in the _boots_
with fifty-seven strokes, and the daughter in the _pilniewinks_, that
they, ‘being sae tormented beside her, might move her to make any
confession for their relief.’ A like confession had been extorted from
Thomas Palpla, to the effect that he had conspired with the Master
to poison his brother, ‘he being kept in the cashielaws eleven days
and eleven nights, twice in the day by the space of fourteen days
callit [driven] in the boots, he being naked in the meantime, and
scourgit with tows [ropes] in sic sort that they left neither flesh nor
hide upon him; in the extremity of whilk torture the said pretended
confession had been drawn out of him.’ Both of these witnesses had
revoked their confessions, Alison Balfour doing so solemnly on the
Heading Hill of Kirkwall, when about to submit to death for her own
alleged crime, of which she at the same time protested herself to be
innocent. These are among the most painful examples we anywhere find of
the barbarous legal procedure of our ancestors.--_Pit._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: AUG. 3.
1596.]
One John Dickson, an Englishman, was tried for uttering slanderous
speeches against the king, calling him ‘ane bastard king,’ and saying
‘he was not worthy to be obeyed.’ This it appeared he had done in a
drunken anger, when asked to veer his boat out of the way of the king’s
ordnance. He was adjudged to be hanged.--_Pit._ It is curious on this
and some other occasions to find that, while the king got so little
practical obedience, and the laws in general were so feebly enforced,
such a severe penalty was inflicted on acts of mere disrespect towards
majesty.
[Sidenote: AUG. 17.]
The court was at this time unable to keep silence under the pelt of
pasquils which it had brought upon itself. We have now a furious edict
of Privy Council against the writers and promulgators of ‘infamous
libels, buiks, ballats, pasquils, and cantels in prose and rhyme,’
which have lately been set out, and especially against ‘ane maist
treasonable letter in form of a _cockalane_,[214] craftily divulgat
by certain malicious, seditious, and unquiet spirits, uttering mony
shameful and contumelious speeches, full of hatrent and dispite, not
only against God, his servants and ministers, but maist unnaturally
to the prejudice of the honour, guid fame, and reputation of the king
and queen’s majesties, not sparing the prince their dearest son,
besides their nobility, council, and guid subjects.’ The only active
redress, however, was to proclaim a reward for the discovery of the
offenders.--_P. C. R._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: NOV. 3.]
Since November 1585, when he was driven from the king’s councils, James
Stewart of Newton (sometime Earl of Arran) had lived in obscurity in
the north.[215] Now that the Chancellor Maitland was dead, he formed
a hope that possibly some use might be found for him at court; he
therefore came to Edinburgh privately, and had an interview with the
king at Holyroodhouse. He received some encouragement; but as nothing
could be done for him immediately, and there were many enemies to
reconcile, he bethought him of going to live for a while amongst his
friends in Ayrshire, trusting erelong to be sent for.
[Sidenote: 1596.]
The ex-favourite was travelling by Symington, in the upper ward of
Lanarkshire, when some one who knew him gave him warning that he was
come into a dangerous neighbourhood, for not far from the way he was
about to pass dwelt a leading man of that house of Douglas which he
had mortally offended by his prosecution of the Regent Morton. This
was Sir James Douglas of Parkhead, whose father was a natural brother
of the regent: he was now the husband of the heiress of the house of
Carlyle of Torthorald, and a man of consideration. Stewart replied
disdainfully that he was travelling where he had a right to be, and he
would not go out of his way for Parkhead nor any other of the house of
Douglas. A mean person who overheard this speech made off and reported
it to Douglas, who, on hearing it, rose from table, where he had been
dining, and vowed he would have the life of Stewart at all hazards.
He immediately mounted, and with three servants rode after his enemy
through a valley called the Catslack. When Stewart saw himself pursued,
he asked the name of the place, and being told, desired his people to
come on with all possible speed, for he had got a response from some
soothsayer to beware of that spot. Parkhead speedily overtook him,
struck him from his horse, and then mercilessly killed him. Cutting
off the head, he caused it to be carried by a servant on the point of
a spear, thus verifying another weird saying regarding Stewart, that
he should have the highest head in Scotland. His body was left on the
spot, to become the prey of dogs and swine.[216]
Thus perished an ex-chancellor of Scotland, one who had been permitted
for a time to treat the world as if it had only been made for his own
aggrandisement, who had governed a king, struck down a regent, and made
the greatest of the old nobility of the country tremble. Violence,
insolence, and cruelty had been the ruling principles of his life,
and, as Spottiswoode says, ‘he was paid home in the end.’ No decided
effort was made to execute justice upon his slayer;[217] but it will be
afterwards found that the Ochiltree Stewarts did not forget his death.
(See under July 1608.)
* * * * *
[Sidenote: DEC. 17.
1596.]
An edict of the king against what he called unlawful convocations
of the clergy, had raised a general uneasiness and excitement, many
believing that all independent action of the clergy was struck at. The
prosecution of a minister named David Black, who had slandered the king
and queen in the pulpit, and refused to submit to a secular tribunal,
added to the turmoil. James had further raised a great distrust
regarding his fidelity to the Protestant religion by his allowing the
exiled papist lords to return to their own country. It was at this
crisis that the tumult long known in French fashion as the _Seventeenth
of December_ took place.
‘... being Friday, his majesty being in the Tolbooth sitting in
session, and ane convention of ministers being in the New Kirk [a
contiguous section of St Giles’s Church], and some noblemen being
convenit with them, as in special Blantyre and Lindsay, there came in
some devilish officious person, and said that the ministers were coming
to take his life. Upon the whilk, the Tolbooth doors were steekit, and
there arase sic ane crying, “God and the king!” other some crying, “God
and the kirk!” that the haill commons of Edinburgh raise in arms, and
knew not wherefore always. There was ane honest man, wha was deacon
of deacons; his name was John Watt, smith. This John Watt raisit the
haill crafts in arms, and came to the Tolbooth, where the entry is to
the Chequer-house, and there cried for a sight of his majesty, or else
he sould ding up the yett with fore-hammers, sae that never ane within
the Tolbooth sould come out with their life. At length his majesty
lookit ower the window, and spake to the commons, wha offerit to die
and live with him. Sae his majesty came down after the townsmen were
commandit off the gait, and was convoyit by the craftsmen to the abbey
of Holyroodhouse.’--_Bir._
[Sidenote: 1596.]
The king either was really exasperated or pretended to be so. Retiring
to Linlithgow next day, he sent orders to Edinburgh, discharging the
courts of justice from sitting there, commanding one minister to be
imprisoned and others to be put to the horn, and citing the magistrates
to come and answer for the seditious conduct of their people. Great
was the consternation thus produced, insomuch that one Sunday passed
without public worship--‘the like of which had not been seen before.’
On the last day of the year, James returned, to all appearance charged
with the most alarming intentions against the city. A proclamation was
issued, commanding certain lords and Border chiefs of noted loyalty to
occupy certain ports and streets. There consequently arose a rumour
‘that the king’s majesty should send in Will Kinmont, the common thief,
as should spulyie the town of Edinburgh. Upon the whilk, the haill
merchants took their haill geir out of their booths and shops, and
transportit the same to the strongest house that was in the town, and
remainit in the said house with themselves, their servants, and looking
for nothing but that they should have all been spulyit. Siclike, the
haill craftsmen and commons convenit themselves, their best goods,
as it were ten or twelve households in ane, whilk was the strongest
house, and might be best keepit from spulying and burning, with hagbut,
pistolet, and other sic armour, as might best defend themselves. Judge,
gentle reader, gif this be playing! Thir noblemen and gentlemen,
keepers of the ports and Hie Gait, being set at the places foresaid,
with pike and spear, and other armour, stood keeping the foresaid
places appointit, till his majesty came to St Giles’s Kirk, Mr David
Lindsay making the sermon. His majesty made ane oration or harangue,
concerning the sedition of the seditious ministers, as it pleased him
to term them.’--_Bir._
The affair ended three months after, in a way that supports the opinion
of the Laird of Dumbiedykes, that ‘it’s sad work, but siller will help
it.’ March 22d, ‘the town of Edinburgh was relaxed frae the horn, and
received into the king’s favour again, and the session ordained to sit
down in Edinburgh the 25th of May thereafter.’ Next day, ‘the king
drank in the council-house with the bailies, council, and deacons.
The said bailies and council convoyit his majesty to the West Port
thereafter. In the meantime of this drinking in the council-house,
the bells rang for joy of their agreement; the trumpets sounded, the
drums and whistles played, with [as] many other instruments of music as
might be played on; and the town of Edinburgh, for the tumult-raising
the 17 of December before, was _ordained to pay to his majesty thretty
thousand merks Scottish_.’--_Bir._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1596-7.]
John Mure, of Auchindrain, in Ayrshire, was a gentleman of good means
and connections, who acted at one time in a judicial capacity as bailie
of Carrick, and gave general satisfaction by his judgments. He was
son-in-law to the Laird of Bargeny, one of the three chief men of the
all-powerful Ayrshire family of Kennedy. Sir Thomas Kennedy of Colzean,
another of these great men, was on bad terms with Bargeny. Mure, who
might naturally be expected to take his father-in-law’s side, was for
a time restrained by some practical benefits, in the shape of lands,
offered to him by Sir Thomas; but the titles to the lands not being
ultimately made good, the Laird of Auchindrain conceived only the more
furious hatred against the knight of Colzean. This happened about 1595,
and it appears at the same time that Sir Thomas had excited a deadly
rage in the bosom of the Earl of Cassillis’s next brother, usually
called the Master of Cassillis. The Master and Auchindrain, with
another called the Laird of Dunduff, easily came to an understanding
with each other, and agreed to slay Sir Thomas Kennedy the first
opportunity. Such was the manner of conducting a quarrel about
land-rights and despiteful words amongst gentlemen in Ayrshire in those
days.
[Sidenote: JAN. 1.]
On the evening of the 1st of January, Sir Thomas Kennedy supped with
Sir Thomas Nisbet in the house of the latter at Maybole. The Lairds of
Auchindrain and Dunduff, with a few servants, lay in wait for him in
the yard, and when he came forth to go to his own house to bed, they
fired their pistols at him. ‘He being safe of any hurt therewith, and
perceiving them with their swords most cruelly to pursue his life, ...
was forced for his safety to fly; in which chase they did approach him
so near, as he had undoubtedly been overta’en and killed, if he had
not adventured to run aside and cover himself with the ruins of ane
decayed house; whilk, in respect of the darkness of the night, they did
not perceive; but still followed to his lodging, and searched all the
corners thereof, till the confluence of the people ... forced them to
retire.’[218]
For this assault, Sir Thomas Kennedy pursued at law the Lairds of
Auchindrain and Dunduff, and was so far successful that Dunduff had
to retire into England, while ‘Colzean gat the house of Auchindrain,
and destroyit the ... plenishing, and wrackit all the garden. And also
they made mony sets [snares] to have gotten [Auchindrain] himself; but
God preservit him from their tyranny.’[219] Auchindrain, however, was
forced ‘to cover malice by show of repentance, and for satisfaction of
his bypast offence, and _gage_ of his future duty, to offer his eldest
son in marriage to Sir Thomas Kennedy’s dochter; whilk, by intercession
of friends, [was] accepted.’[220]
We shall hear more of this feud hereafter (see under December 11, 1601).
* * * * *
[Sidenote: FEB. 17.
1596-7.]
Under a commission from the king, the provost and bailies of Aberdeen
commenced a series of witch-trials of a remarkable kind. The first
delinquent, Janet Wishart, spouse of John Lees, stabler--a woman
considerably advanced in life--was accused of a great number of
_maléfices_ perpetrated, during upwards of thirty years, against
neighbours, chiefly under a spirit of petty revenge. In the greater
number of cases, the victim was described as being seized with an
ailment under which he passed through the extremes of heat and cold,
and was afflicted with an insatiable drouth. In several cases the
illness had a fatal conclusion. For instance, James Low, stabler,
having refused Janet the loan of his kiln and barn, took a _dwining_
illness in consequence, ‘melting away like ane burning candle,’ till
he died. John, in his last moments, declared his belief that, if he
had lent Janet his kiln and barn, he would still have been a living
man. ‘By the whilk witchcraft casten upon him, and upon his house, his
wife died, his only son [fell] in the same kind of sickness, and his
haill geir, surmounting three thousand pounds, are altogether wrackit
and away.’ It was considered sufficient proof on this point, that
sundry persons testified to having heard James lay on Janet the blame
of his misfortunes. Another person had been ruined in his means, in
consequence of his wife obeying a direction of Janet for the insurance
of constant prosperity--namely, taking nine pickles of wheat and a
piece of rowan-tree, and putting them in the four nooks of the house.
Janet had also caused a dozen fowls belonging to a neighbour to fall
from a roost dead at her feet. She raised wind for winnowing some malt
in her own house, at a moment of perfect calm, by putting a piece of
live coal at each of two doors. She caused a neighbour’s cow to give
something like venom instead of milk. A Mart ox which she wished to
buy, became furious; wherefore she got it at her own price, and on
her laying her hands on it, the animal became quiet. There is also a
terrible recital of her causing a neighbour to accompany her to the
gallows in the Links, where she cut pieces from the various members of
a dead culprit, to be used for effecting some of her devilish purposes.
This story was only reported by one who had received it from the woman
herself, now deceased; but it passed as equally good evidence with the
rest. It was alleged that, twenty-two years ago, she had been found
sitting in a field of green corn before sun-ris, when, being asked what
she was doing, she said: ‘I have been peeling the blades of the corn: I
find it will be ane dear year; the blade of the corn grows withershins
[contrary to the course of the sun]: when it grows sungates about
[in the direction of the sun’s course], it will be ane cheap year.’
One of the last points in the dittay was that, for eight days before
her apprehension, ‘continually there was sic ane fearful rumbling in
thy house, that William Murray, cordiner, believit the house he was
into, next to thy house, should have fallen and smoorit him and his
haill bairns.’ This poor woman appears to have been taken to the stake
immediately after her trial.
Her son, Thomas Lees, was accused of having aided her in her evil
deeds, and being ‘ane common witch and sorcerer,’ and his trial
(February 23) brings out some curious points. He was accused of having
been one of a large company of witches and sorcerers who had gone to
the Market and Fish Crosses of Aberdeen at midnight of the previous
Halloween (All Saints’ Eve), ‘under the guiding and conduct of the
devil ... playing before you on his kind of instruments.’ The company
were all transformed, some as hares, some as cats, some in other
likenesses, and all danced about the two crosses and the meal-market a
long space of time, Thomas being the leader of the ring. One Catherine
Mitchell being somewhat laggard, he beat her to make her go faster; a
fact to which Catherine herself now bore witness. A woman with whom
Thomas had been too intimate also testified to his having offered to
take her to Murrayland and marry her, telling her that by the way, at
the foot of a particular mountain, he could raise a spirit able to
provide them with all necessaries. This poor fellow was also condemned
to the flames. The husband and daughters of Janet Wishart--the latter
of whom are taxed as well known to be ‘quick gangand devils’--narrowly
escaped with banishment from the city.
[Sidenote: 1597.]
Helen Fraser, who was tried in April, was accused of many witchcrafts
of common kinds, and of some less common. For instance, she had
translated a sickness from a man’s horse to his cow, and, worse than
that, the affection of Andrew Tullideff from his wife to a woman
called Margaret Neilson, ‘and sae michtily bewitchit him, that he
could never be reconceillit with his wife, or remove his affection
frae the said harlot.’ Another man, Robert Merchant by name, who had
been married happily to Christian White for two years, being taken to
sow corn for a widow named Isobel Bruce, at the Murihill of Foveran,
where Helen Fraser was then living, ‘fand his affection violently
and extraordinarily drawn away from the said Christian to the said
Isobel, ane great luve being betwixt him and the said Christian
always theretofore, and nae break of luve or discord falling out
or intervening upon either of their parts: whilk thing the country
supposit to be brought about by the unlawful travelling of the said
Helen’--and was further _testified by Robert himself_. Helen was
likewise convicted, and of course burnt.
[Sidenote: 1597.]
Isobel Cockie took from cows the power of giving healthful milk, making
them give a poisonous stuff instead. She also prevented good milk from
‘yirning.’ Horses had fallen dead under her touch.
Men against whom she had pronounced evil words took deadly sicknesses
in consequence, or suffered a decay in their worldly means. Her house
being ruinous, the proprietor, Alexander Anderson, had come in her
absence, and was proceeding to mend the roof, when she came home, and
finding he had uncovered her pantry, where her valuables lay, she said:
‘I shall gar thee forthink it, that thou hast tirrit my house, I being
frae hame,’ and _glowrit up at him_. Immediately Alexander’s speech
went from him, and he retired to bed sick, and could get no rest or
sleep. Under the threats of his son, she was induced to come and charm
this sickness away from him, and ‘gave him droggis, that his speech
came to him again.’[221] By the confession of the recently burnt Thomas
Lees, Isobel Cockie had been second to himself in the infernal dance at
the Fish Cross, ‘and because the devil playit not so melodiously and
weel as thou cravit, thou took his instrument out of his mouth, then
took him on the chafts therewith, and playit thyself thereon to the
haill company.’ Isobel was likewise condemned.
[Sidenote: 1597.]
It would be tedious to enter into the long series of trials which
extended over this year in and near Aberdeen; but a few particulars
are worth giving. The case of Andrew Man, an aged person, formerly of
Tarbrugh, in the parish of Rathven, involves a more imaginative style
of warlockry than is common. According to his own confessions--that is
to say, the hallucinations which he described--the devil came sixty
years ago to his mother’s house, in the form of a woman, called the
Queen of Elfen, and was delivered of a bairn; at which time, he being
a boy, bringing in water, was promised by this distinguished stranger
‘that thou should know all things; and should help and cure all
sorts of sickness, except _stand-deid_, and that thou should be weel
enterteinit, but wald seek thy meat ere thou de’ed, as Thomas Rhymer
did.’ Thirty-two years before, he had begun a guilty intercourse with
this Queen of Elfen, at whose first coming, ‘she caused ane of thy
cattle die upon ane hillock called the Elf-hillock, but promised to do
him good thereafter.’ Andrew, according to his own account, could ‘cure
the falling-sickness, the bairn-bed, and all other sorts of sickness
that ever fell to man or beast, except the _stand-deid_, by baptising
them, reabling them in the auld corunschbald, and striking of the gudis
on the face, with ane fowl in thy hand, and by saying thir words:
“Gif thou will live, live; and gif thou will die, die!” with sundry
other orisons, sic as of Sanct John and the three silly brethren, whilk
thou can say when thou please, and by giving of black wool and salt
as a remeid for all diseases and for causing a man prosper and that
his blude should never be drawn.’ He had cured several persons by his
enchantments, one mode being to put the patient nine times through a
hasp of unwatered yarn, and then a cat as many times backward through
the same hasp, the effect of which was to translate the sickness from
the patient to the cat.
The devil, whom Andrew called Christsonday, and believed to be an
angel, was raised by the word _Benedicite_, and laid again by taking
a dog under his armpit, casting the same in the devil’s mouth, and
speaking the word _Maikpeblis_. ‘The Queen of Elfen has a grip of all
the craft, but Christsonday is the guidman, and has all power under
God, and thou kens sundry deid men in their company, and the king that
died at Flodden and Thomas Rhymer is there.’
‘Upon Rood-day in harvest, in this present year, whilk fell on a
Wednesday, thou saw Christsonday come out of the snaw in likeness of a
staig [young male horse], and the Queen of Elfen was there, and others
with her, riding upon white hackneys.’ ‘The elves have shapes and
claithes like men, and will have fair covered tables, and they are but
shadows, but are starker [stronger] nor men, and they have playing and
dancing when they please; the queen is very pleasand, and will be auld
and young when she pleases; she makes any king whom she pleases.... The
elves will make thee appear to be in a fair chalmer, and yet thou will
find thyself in a moss on the morn. They will appear to have candles,
and licht, and swords, whilk will be nothing else but dead grass and
straes.’ Andrew denied his guilt, but was nevertheless convicted, and
doubtless burnt.
In the dittay against Marjory Mutch, it was alleged that, having an
ill-will against William Smith in Tarserhill, she came to his plough
and bewitched the oxen, so that ‘they instantly ran all wood [mad],
brak the pleuch, twa thereof ran over the hills to Deer, and other
twa thereof up Ithan side, whilk could never be tane nor apprehendit
again.’ This woman was said to have destroyed much cattle, laid
sickness on many persons, and attended all the witch conventions of the
district. In token of her being a witch, there was a spot under her
left ear, into which a gentleman had thrust a pin without producing any
pain.
[Sidenote: 1597.]
Margaret Clark, being sent for by the wife of Nicol Ross, when she was
in childbed, ‘cast the haill dolours, sickness, and pains whilk she
should have susteinit, upon Andrew Harper, wha, during all the time of
her travelling, was exceedingly and marvellously troubled, in ane fury
and madness as it were, and could not be halden; and how soon the said
gentlewoman was delivered, the pains departed frae the said Andrew.’
It is alleged of Violet Leys, that, her husband, a mariner, being
discharged from William Finlay’s ship, she and her late mother
bewitched the said ship, ‘that, since thy husband was put forth of
the same, she never made one good voyage, but either the master or
merchants at some times through tempest of weather, were forced to cast
overboard the greatest part of their lading, or then to perish, men,
ship, and geir.’ Several of the other culprits are accused of raising
and calming the wind at pleasure.[222]
It appears that at this time twenty-two unfortunate men and women,
chiefly the latter, suffered in Aberdeen and its neighbourhood.
Such a tremendous sacrifice to superstition would in itself be
worthy of special notice here; but it becomes the more so from a
probability which appears that Shakspeare must have been acquainted
with the details of these trials. It will be found that the chief
of his company, Lawrence Fletcher, was in Aberdeen with a party of
comedians in October 1601. That Shakspeare was of the party is not
certain; but there is no fact to militate against the probability
that he was. Mr Charles Knight[223] has shewn that in these trials
there occur many things which strongly recall passages in the
witch-scenes of _Macbeth_--as if those scenes had been written by one
who had thoroughly studied the dittays against Janet Wishart and her
associates. Nearly all of those women--and it is very much a special
feature of this group of cases--had laid heavy disease on those whom
they held at ill-will, causing them to suffer fearful pains, and their
strength to decay.
‘He shall live a man forbid:
Weary seven nights nine times nine,
He shall dwindle, peak, and pine.’
[Sidenote: 1597.]
Such are the dread words of the _Macbeth_ hags. We see that the
Aberdeen witches had power over the winds; so had those of Macbeth.
Banquo says to the weird sisters:
‘If you can look into the seeds of time,
And say which grain will grow, and which will not,
Speak then to me.’
This, it must be acknowledged, is wonderfully like a suggestion to the
imagination from such a fact as that of Janet Wishart’s vaticinations
among the growing corn. The witch-dance at the Fish Cross is much like
those under the guidance of Hecate; and Wishart’s dealing with the
malefactor’s corpse at the gallows on the Links, might well furnish a
hint for the incantations over the caldron.
‘Grease that’s sweaten
From the murderer’s gibbet, throw
Into the flame.’
And perhaps even the humble cantrip of Marjory Mutch with William
Smith’s oxen, might suggest the fine passage descriptive of the conduct
of Duncan’s horses at his death; when they
‘Turned wild in nature, broke their stalls, flung out,
Contending ’gainst obedience, as they would
Make war with mankind.’
‘If it be not,’ says Mr Knight, in concluding this curious speculation,
‘to inquire too curiously, may we not trace one of the most striking
passages in _Othello_ to the humble source of an Aberdeen superstition?’
“That handkerchief
Did an Egyptian to my mother give;
She was a charmer, and could almost read
The thoughts of people: she told her, while she kept it,
’Twould make her amiable, and subdue my father
Entirely to her love.”
[Sidenote: 1597.]
In the information against Isobell Straquhan, it is alleged that “the
said Isobell came to Elspet Mutrey in Wodheid, she being a widow, and
asked of her if she had a penny to lend her, and the said Elspet gave
her the penny; and the said Isobell took the penny, and bowit [bent]
it, and took a clout and a piece red wax, and sewed the clout with a
thread, the wax and the penny being within the clout, and gave it to
the said Elspet Mutrey, commanding her to use the said clout to hang
about her craig [neck], and when she saw the man she loved best, take
the clout, with the penny and wax, and stroke her face with it, and she
so doing, should attain in to the marriage of that man whom she loved.”
The “clout” sewed “with a thread” wants, indeed, the poetical colouring
of the “handkerchief” of _Othello_; but still
“There’s magic in the web of it.”
More curious in the effects produced is another example of the
“prophetic fury” of the “sibyl” Isobell Straquhan. She could not only
produce love, but remove hatred: Walter Ronaldson had used to strike
his wife, who took consultation with Scudder (_alias_ Straquhan),
and ‘she did take pieces of paper, and sew them thick with thread of
divers colours, and did put them in the barn amongst the corn, and from
henceforth the said Walter did never strike his wife, neither yet once
found fault with her, whatsoever she did. He was subdued “entirely to
her love.”’
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1596-7.