copied from the Christian ceremony and therefore of later date. It does not
seem to occur in England and hardly at all in Scotland. The earliest
mention is in the Basses-Pyrenees (1609), where Jeannette d'Abadie stated
'qu'elle a veu souuent baptiser des enfans au sabbat, qu'elle nous expliqua
estre des enfans des sorcieres & non autres, lesquelles ont accoutume faire
plustost baptiser leurs enfans au sabbat qu'en l'Eglise'.[271] The rite,
however, was practised in Bute in 1662: Margret NcLevine confessed--
'that being in a litle chamber in Balichtarach the devill came to her
in the lyknes of a man and deseired hir to goe with him, and that she
refusing he said I will not [blank] and she gave him [blank] she never
saw afterward and that she knew it was the devill and after he went
that he came bak and asked hir to give him hir hand quhich she
refusing to doe he took hir by the midle finger of the rycht hand
quhich he had almost cutt off hir and therwith left hir. Her finger
was so sorely pained for the space of a moneth ther after that ther
was no pain comparable to it, as also took her by the right leg quhich
was sorly pained likewayes as also be the devill. Item he came to her
againe as she was shaking straw in the barne of Ardroscidell in a very
ugly shape and that there he desired hir to goe with him and she
refusing he said to her I will either have thy self or then thy heart.
Item that he healed her sore foot and finger quhich finger is yet be
nummed. Item that before he haled her that she made a covenant with
him and promised to doe him any service that he wold imploy hir in.
Item that he asked quhat was her name. She answered him Margret the
name that God gave me, and he said to her I baptise the Jonet.'[272]
Isobell NcNicoll 'confessed that as she was in her owne house her alone
drawing acquavittie the devill came to her in the lyknes of a young man and
desyred her to goe with him and confesses that she made a covenant with him
quhairin he promised that she should not want meanes enough and she
promised to be his servand. Item that he baptised her and gave her a new
name and called her Caterine. Item that about a moneth therafter in the
night as she went out of her own back dore she met with the devill and spok
with him.'[273]--Jonet McNicoll 'confesses with remorse that about
hallowday as she was in Mary Moore's house that there appeared to her two
men the on a gross copperfaced man and the other a wele favored young man
and that the copperfaced man quhom she knew to be ane evil spirit bade her
goe with him. Item confesses that she made a covenant with him, and he
promised that she wold not want meines eneugh and she promised to serve him
and that he gave her a new name saying I baptise the Mary.'[274]--Jonet
Morisoune 'traysted with the divill at the Knockanrioch, being the second
tyme of her meeting with him, that shee made covenant with the devill ...
quairin she promised to be his servant etc. that shee asked quhat was his
name his answer was my name is Klareanough and he asked quhat was her name
and she answered Jonet Morisoun, the name that God gave me, and he said
belive not in Christ bot belive in me. I baptise the Margarat.'[275] The
Swedish witches (1669) were also baptized; 'they added, that he caused them
to be baptized too by such Priests as he had there, and made them confirm
their Baptism with dreadful Oaths and Imprecations.'[276] Curiously enough
the most detailed account comes from New England (1692). Mary Osgood, wife
of Captain Osgood, went 'to five mile pond, where she was baptized by the
devil, who dipped her face in the water, and made her renounce her former
baptism, and told her she must be his, soul and body for ever, and that she
must serve him, which she promised to do. She says, the renouncing her
first baptism was after her dipping.'[277] The account of Goody Lacey's
experience is given in the form of question and answer:
'_Q._ Goody Lacey! how many years since they were baptized? _A._ Three
or four years ago, I suppose. _Q._ Who baptized them? _A._ The old
serpent. _Q._ How did he do it? _A._ He dipped their heads in the
water, saying, that they were his and that he had power over them.
_Q._ Where was this? _A._ At Fall's River. _Q._ How many were baptized
that day? _A._ Some of the chief; I think they were six baptized. _Q._
Name them. _A._ I think they were of the higher powers.'[278]
A near approach to the ceremony of baptism is the blood-rite at Auldearne,
described by Isobel Gowdie and Janet Breadheid. The Devil marked Isobel on
the shoulder, 'and suked owt my blood at that mark, and spowted it in his
hand, and, sprinkling it on my head, said, "I baptise the, Janet, in my
awin name."' The Devil marked Janet Breadheid in the same way on the
shoulder, 'and suked out my blood with his mowth, at that place; he
spowted it in his hand, and sprinkled it on my head. He baptised me
thairvith in his awin nam, "Christian."'[279]
Though baptism is rare, the giving of a new name on admission is peculiar
to Scotland. The names seem to have been usually nicknames derived from
various sources; personal peculiarities such as 'Weill dancing Janet', or
'Able and stout'; contractions of the proper name, as 'Naip' for Barbara
Napier; or a title such as 'Rob the Rowar', for Robert Grierson, who kept
the rows or rolls. Most of the other names appear to have been ordinary
Christian names arbitrarily bestowed. There is nothing to throw any light
on the reason for the change. In 1590 at North Berwick the witch-name was
considered of the highest importance.
'Robert Griersoune being namit, thay ran all hirdie-girdie and wer
angrie; for it wes promesit, that he sould be callit "Ro^t the
Comptroller alias Rob the Rowar" for expreming of his name.--Effie
McCalzane, Robert Griersoune, and the said Barbara, hapnit to be
nameit thair; quhilk offendit all the cumpany: And that they sould
nocht haif bene nameit with thair awin names; Robert Griersoun, to
haif bene callit _Rob the rowar_; Effie to be callit _Cane_; and the
said Barbara, to be callit _Naip_.'[280]
Later, the change of name was of so little value that at Crook of Devon
several of the witches could not remember what they had been called; Bessie
Henderson appears to have recollected the name after a time, for it is
inserted towards the end of the confession; Robert Wilson could remember
the Devil's name but not his own: Agnes Brugh and Christian Grieve could
remember neither the Devil's nor their own.[281]
The so-called 'christening', i.e. naming, of animals, comes rather under
the head of 'sacrifice' than of baptism, for the ceremony appears to have
been purificatory.
6. _The Mark_
The Witches' Mark, or Devil's Mark, as it is indifferently called, is one
of the most important points in the identification of a witch, as the
infliction of it was often the final rite in the admission ceremonies. The
fact that any person bore such a mark was taken as incontrovertible proof
that the bearer was a witch.
There were two kinds of marks, which should be carefully differentiated,
one of which was clearly natural, the other probably artificial. Both were
said to be insensible to pain and not to bleed when pricked or pierced.
Local anaesthesia is vouched for in much of the evidence, which suggests
that there is a substratum of truth in the statements, but I can at present
offer no solution of this problem.
The writers on witchcraft, particularly the legal authorities, recognize
the value of the Mark as proof of witchcraft, and some differentiate
between the two forms; the witches themselves made a distinction between
the two, the natural being considered inferior to the artificial.
Reginald Scot in 1584 summarizes the evidence in a few words: 'The Diuell
giveth to euerie nouice a marke, either with his teeth or with his
clawes.'[282] The _Lawes against Witches and Conivration_, published 'by
authority' in 1645, state that 'their said Familiar hath some big or little
Teat upon their body, wher he sucketh them: and besides their sucking, the
Devil leaveth other markes upon their bodies, sometimes like a Blew-spot,
or Red-spot like a flea-biting'. Sir George Mackenzie, the famous Scotch
lawyer, describing in 1699 what did and did not legally constitute a witch,
says:
'The Devils Mark useth to be a great Article with us, but it is not
_per se_ found relevant, except it be confest by them, that they got
that Mark with their own consent; _quo casu_, it is equivalent to a
Paction. This Mark is given to them, as is alledg'd, by a Nip in any
part of the Body, and it is blew. Delrio calls it _Stigma_, or
Character, and alledges that it is sometimes like the impression of a
Hare's foot, or the Foot of a Rat or Spider.'[283]
Forbes, writing in 1730, says:
'On the meaner Proselytes the Devil fixes in some secret Part of their
Bodies a Mark, as his Seal to know his own by; which is like a Flea
Bite or blew Spot, or sometimes resembles a little Teat, and the Part
so stamped doth ever after remain insensible, and doth not bleed, tho'
never so much nipped or pricked by thrusting a Pin, Awl or Bodkin into
it; but if the Covenanter be of better Rank, the Devil only draws
Blood of the Party, or touches him or her in some Part of the Body
without any visible Mark remaining.'[284]
The Mark proper appears to have been the coloured spot or design which
followed the infliction of a prick or nip by the claws or teeth of the
Devil on the person of the neophyte. The red mark is described as being
like a flea-bite, i.e. small and circular; the blue mark seems to have been
larger and more elaborate, apparently in some kind of design. From the
evidence five facts are clear: (1) that the mark was coloured, (2) that it
was permanent, (3) that it was caused by the pricking or tearing of the
skin, (4) that the operator passed his hand or fingers over the place, (5)
that the pain could be severe and might last a considerable time. Put
together in this way, the facts suggest tattooing.
Among the Aberdeen witches in 1597 Andro Man was accused that 'Christsunday
[the Devil] bit a mark in the third finger of thy right hand, whilk thou
has yet to show'; and Christen Mitchell also was accused that 'the Devil
gave thee a nip on the back of thy right hand, for a mark that thou was one
of his number'.[285] According to Boguet, writing in 1598, the witches of
Eastern France were usually marked on the left shoulder, and the mark was
in the shape of the foot or footprint of a hare, but he also gives some
exceptional cases:
'L'epaule gauche est l'endroit, ou plus ordinairement il marque les
Sorciers. La marque des Sorciers est tantost come vne piste ou pied de
lieure, & tantost d'autre facon. On en a veu vne, qui auoit vne figure
rapportant en grandeur a vn petit denier, du centre de laquelle
s'estendoient plusieurs filamens vers la circonference. La marque de
la Belcuenotte, qui a este brulee a Besancon, estoit au dessus de sa
nature, vn peu plus bas que le nombril. Celle, dont Guillauma Proby
d'Anchay se trouua marquee au col du coste droit, estoit de mesme de
la grandeur d'vn petit denier, tirant sur le brun. Iean de Vaux auoit
la siene au doz, & ressembloit a vn petit chien noir.'[286]
De Lancre in 1609 says that in the Basses-Pyrenees 'comme le Diable faict
sa marque, on sent vn peu de chaleur, qui penetre plus ou moins
profondement la chair, que plus ou moins il pince le lieu qu'il touche'. As
regards the position of the mark he says:
'Il les egratigne tous auec le bras gauche, & les ongles de la main
senestre. Et tout aussi tost prenant vne espingle d'or faux, il les
marque le plus souuent dans le blac de l'[oe]il gauche, & leur imprime
vne marque qui semble vn petit crapaud' [elsewhere he says 'vne patte
de crapaud']; 'par fois dans l'epaule & coste gauche, ou dans la
cuisse, leur rompant & dechirant la peau & la chair iusques a effusio
de sang; si bien que pendant trois mois ils ont de tres grandes
douleurs.'[287]
Isobel Crawford of Irvine in 1618 had 'the devill's mark, quhilk was lyk
ane braid dyn spott, in the inner syd of hir left thie, about ane handbraid
under her lisk'.[288] The Lancashire witch, Margaret Johnson, in 1633,
'saith, that such Witches as have sharpe bones given them by the devill to
pricke them, have no papps nor duggs, but their devil receiveth blood from
the place, pricked with the bone, which witches are more grand witches than
any that have marks'.[289] The Yarmouth witch, tried in 1644, saw a tall
black man standing in the moonlight at her door: 'he told her, he must
first see her Hand; and then taking out something like a Pen-knife, he gave
it _a little Scratch_, so that Blood followed, and the _Mark_ remained to
that time.'[290] Rebecca Jones, an Essex witch tried in 1645, confessed
that 'there came one morning one to the doore and knocked, and that this
examinant going to the dore, shee saw there a very handsome young man, as
shee then thought but now shee thinkes it was the devill; who asked this
examinant how shee did, and desired to see her left wrist, which shee
shewed unto him: and he then tooke a pin from this examinant's owne sleeve,
and pricked her wrist twice, and there came out a drop of bloud, which he
took off with the top of his finger, and so departed'.[291] The
child-witch, Jonet Howat of Forfar, tried in 1661, said that 'the devil
kist hir and niped hir vpon one of hir shoulders, so as shoe hade great
paine for some tyme therafter'; later he came to her, and 'calling hir his
bony bird did kisse hir, and straiked her shoulder (quhich was niped) with
his hand, and that presently after that shoe was eased of hir former
paine'. Elspet Alexander, of the same Coven, was also marked on the
shoulder; four weeks later 'the divill straiked hir shoulder with his
fingers, and after that shoe hade ease in the place formerly niped by the
devill'.[292] The witch girls at Lille in 1661 stated that 'le Diable leur
fait quelque marque comme avec une aleine de fer en quelque partie du
corps'.[293] Marie Lamont of Innerkip in 1662 confessed voluntarily that
'the devill nipit her upon the right syd, qlk was very painful for a tym,
but yairefter he straikit it with his hand, and healed it; this she
confesses to be his mark'.[294] In Bute in 1662 'Margaret NcWilliam was
tryed for the merk there was 3 merks fund, one up her left leg, next hard
be the shine bone, another betwixt her shoulders a 3º ane uthyr up her
hensh, blew.... Kat Moore was tried, and it was found undernethe her richt
shoulder a little whyt unsensible spott'.[295] The Somerset witches, in
1664, were marked on the fingers; it was stated of Elizabeth Style that the
Devil 'prickt the fourth Finger of hir right hand, between the middle and
upper joynt (where the sign at the Examination remained)'; of Alice Duke,
that 'the Devil prickt the fourth finger of her right hand between the
middle and upper joynt (where the mark is yet to be seen)'; and of
Christian Green, that 'the Man in black prickt the fourth finger of her
Right-hand between the middle and upper joints, where the sign yet
remains'.[296] At Paisley in 1678 Annabil Stuart confessed 'that the Devil
took her by the Hand and nipped her Arm, which continued to be sore for
half an hour'.[297] At Borrowstowness the Devil took Margaret Pringle 'by
the right hand, whereby it was for eight days grievowslie pained; bot
having it twitched of new againe, it imediatelie becam haill'.[298] Of the
Renfrewshire Coven in 1696 little Thomas Lindsay received 'a Nip on the
Neck which continued sore for Ten days'; and John Reid had 'a Bite or Nipp
in his Loyn, which he found painfull for a Fortnight'.[299] At Pittenweem
in 1704 the 'young lass', Isobel Adams, confessed that the Devil 'put his
mark in her flesh which was very painful'.[300]
The other form of the Devil's Mark was the 'little Teat'. It occurred on
various parts of the body; was said to secrete milk and to give suck to the
familiars, both human and animal; and was sometimes cut off by the witch
before being searched. The descriptions of the 'teat' point to its being
that natural phenomenon, the supernumerary nipple. Cases of polymastia or
supernumerary breasts, and of polythelia or supernumerary nipples, are
constantly recorded by modern medical observers. 'These accessory
structures are usually situated on the chest wall, the upper part of the
abdominal wall, or in the axillae, but they have been met with on the
shoulder, the buttock, the thigh, and other extraordinary positions. As a
rule they are functionless.'[301] Polythelia occurs in both sexes;
according to Bruce, 'of 315 individuals taken indiscriminately and in
succession, 7.619 per cent. presented supernumerary nipple; 9.11 per cent.
of 207 men examined in succession presented supernumerary nipple; and 4.807
per cent. of 104 women.' He concludes that, 'according to present
observations at least, supernumerary nipples occur much more frequently in
the male than in the female.'[302] Cameron tabulates the positions of the
supernumerary nipple in 105 cases: '96 were situated in thorax, 5 in
axilla, 2 in back, 1 on shoulder, 1 outside of thigh.'[303] All writers on
the subject agree that the phenomenon is of more common occurrence than is
usually supposed, but that many cases pass unnoticed unless well marked
when in men or causing discomfort by functioning when in women. This view
is supported by the fact that, during the recent unparalleled opportunity
for the physical examination of large numbers of men, many cases have been
published in the _British Medical Journal_ for 1917 as occurring among
recruits for the army. The supernumerary nipple is usually very much
smaller than the normal; like the normal, it is a modification of cutaneous
tissue and is not attached to muscular tissue; its removal is a simple
operation, in fact it would be quite possible for an unskilled operator to
cut it off with a sharp knife. In women the supernumerary nipple is
observed to increase at the time of the periods; in some cases during
lactation so much milk is secreted as to make it a matter of indifference
whether the child is suckled at the normal nipples or at the supernumerary
one. In cases of polymastia the nipple is not always formed; the milk, when
secreted, issuing from a small opening. Though the nipple is congenital,
the supernumerary breast may develop, or at any rate become noticeable,
later; the theory being that the ducts carrying the secretion from the
supernumerary to the normal breast become blocked in some way, and that the
milk is thus exuded through the pore in the supernumerary breast. The
change in the case quoted by Cameron, as well as in the case of the witch
Rose Cullender, seems to have been caused by a strain.
Making allowance for the unscientific language of the recorders of the
witch trials, it will be seen that the descriptions of the 'witch-pap' or
'little Teat' exactly coincide with these anatomical facts. I give the
evidence below, the trials being in chronological order. It will be
observed that the cases are from England and New England only; if the
phenomena of polymastia and polythelia occurred in France and Scotland,
there are no records of the fact in the witch-trials of those countries.
Alice Gooderidge and her mother, Elizabeth Wright, of Stapenhill near
Burton-on-Trent, were tried in 1597:
'The old woman they stript, and found behind her right sholder a thing
much like the vdder of an ewe that giueth sucke with two teates, like
vnto two great wartes, the one behinde vnder her armehole, the other
a hand off towardes the top of her shoulder. Being demanded how long
she had those teates, she aunswered she was borne so. Then did they
search Alice Gooderige, and found vpon her belly, a hole of the
bignesse of two pence, fresh and bloudy, as though some great wart had
beene cut off the place.'[304]
The witch of Edmonton, tried in 1621:
'The Bench commanded three women to search the body of Elizabeth
Sawyer. They all three said, that they a little aboue the Fundiment of
Elizabeth Sawyer found a thing like a Teate the bignesse of the little
finger, and the length of half a finger, which was branched at the top
like a teate, and seemed as though one had suckt it, and that the
bottome thereof was blew, and the top of it was redde.'[305]
The greatest number of cases recorded in one place is in Essex during the
trials before Sir Matthew Hale in 1645:
Anne Leech said 'that her imps did usually suck those teats which were
found about the privie parts of her body. [Two women searched Mary
Greenleife], and found that the said Mary had bigges or teates in her
secret parts, not like emerods, nor in those places where women use to
be troubled with them. The examinant, being asked how she came by
those teats which were discovered in her secret parts, she saith she
knows not unlesse she was born with them: but she never knew she had
any such untill this time. [A woman searched Margaret Moone], she
found three long teates or bigges in her secret parts, which seemed to
have been lately sucked; and that they were not like pyles, for this
informant knows well what they are, having been troubled with them
herself. Upon the searching of her daughters, this informant found
that two of them had biggs in their privy parts as the said Margaret
their mother had. [Several women] were required to search Sarah
Hating, the wife of William Hating; Elizabeth Harvy widow, and Marian
Hocket widow, and upon her said search (being a midwife) found such
marks or bigges, that she never saw in other women: for Sarah Hating
had foure teats or bigges in those parts, almost an inch long, and as
bigge as this informant's little finger: That the said Elizabeth Harvy
had three such biggs, and about the same scantling: And that the said
Marian Hocket had no such bigges; but was found in the same parts not
like other honest women. Sarah Barton, the sister of the said Marian
Hocket (also suspected of being a witch) said the said Marian had cut
off her bigs, whereby she might have been suspected to have been a
witch, and laid plaisters to those places.'[306] 'Another Evidence
deposed that she once heard the said Margaret [Landish] say, that her
Imps did usually suck two Teats near the privy parts.'[307]
In Huntingdonshire in 1646 John Clarke junior, a labourer, was tried for
witchcraft; John Browne, a tailor, deposed that he met Clarke on the road,
Clarke 'said he was in haste; for his Father and Mother were accused for
Witches, and that hee himselfe had beene searched: and this Informant
answered, and so have I. Then Clarke asked this Informant, whether any
thing were found about him, or not? he (this Informant) answered, that they
said there were marks: Clarke said againe, had you no more wit but to have
your marks found? I cut off mine three dayes before I was searched.'[308]
John Palmer of St. Albans (1649) confessed that 'upon his compact with the
Divel, hee received a flesh brand, or mark, upon his side, which gave suck
to two familiars'.[309] There were several cases in Yorkshire: In 1649
'they searched the body of the saide Mary Sikes, and founde upon the side
of her seate a redd lumpe about the biggnes of a nutt, being wett, and
that, when they wrung it with theire fingers, moisture came out of it like
lee. And they founde upon her left side neare her arme a litle lumpe like a
wart, and being puld out it stretcht about halfe an inch. And they further
say that they never sawe the like upon anie other weomen.'[310] In 1650
Frances Ward 'saith that she was one of the fower that searched Margaret
Morton, and found upon her two black spotts between her thigh and her body;
they were like a wart, but it was none. And the other was black on both
sides, an inch bread, and blew in the middest.'[311] At Scarborough in 1651