Medieval society has had to deal with many hardships such as problems of famine, plague and class struggles. To all of this, one additional factor can be added to the list: witchcraft. The massive hunt for witches in Europe began in the early decades of the fourteenth century, reaching its peak in the mid-seventeenth century.[1] Although exact figures regarding the execution of accused witches cannot be accurately discerned due primarily to destruction and unavailability of historic documents, rough estimates have been cited from anywhere between 30,000 and several million witches.[2] Of course, it is hard to believe in the latter figure, and a more appropriate guess would place the upper limit in the vicinity of 60,000.[3] There are many factors and questions that must be considered when ascertaining the impact of the roles that differing countries played in this medieval phenomenon, such as who was involved in the accusations and prosecutions of witches, why were women the primary targets of persecution, what were the reasons given for initiating the hunt and targeting of witches, how was torture utilized in this period, were monarchs enthusiastic and personally involved in the witch hunts, and which countries exhibited ‘civil consciousness’ and leniency towards their treatment of witches. Above all, the focus will be aimed toward Scotland’s part in Europe’s great witch hunt and will attempt to determine, by comparison, if Scotland was in any way distinctive in its actions.

            The subject of witchcraft holds many preconceptions within society’s mind. The stereotype of the haggard old woman with warts and a pointy nose has been the ideal held up of what a witch should look like. History has proven that this is not necessarily the case. In some regions of Europe, it was not women, but men, that were primarily accused of witchcraft. For example, in Normandy, almost three-fourths of the known witchcraft defendants between 1564 and 1660 were men.[4] Other nations, such as Estonia, Finland and Iceland also accused more men than women of the crime of witchcraft.[5] Russia was likewise one of these few states where the number of male witches outnumbered the female.[6] The occupations most associated with allegations of witchcraft were shepherds and blacksmiths, and clergymen, due to their intimate knowledge of animals and religion (or ‘anti-religion’, as it were), respectively.[7]

            However surprising this idea of male witches may seem, it ultimately cannot shadow the fact that in Europe as a whole, witchcraft indeed was predominately a woman’s genre.  Approximately 60 percent of all cases tried for witchcraft in sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe were women, [8] with one specific area in southwest Germany even rising to 85 percent.[9] This figure is also indicative of the situation in Scotland. The typical portrait of an accused witch at the time consisted of an old woman, destitute of friends and means of support, who had no choice but to administer magic in exchange for money.[10] This initial persecution of old, single women was gradually replaced by younger and married women toward the middle and end of the witch hunt epidemic[11] With such an exceptionally high proportion of women being accused of witchcraft, there must have been some underlying factors that contributed to this isolation of sexes. The medieval mindset in this instance purported that women were obviously witches because they were more wanton, weak and wicked than men.[12] Stereotypes existed in this period as well, and many believed that women were more prone to indiscretions and sin, and therefore would be more easily tempted by the Devil to enter into the realm of witchcraft.

            In addition to this idea of a ‘weaker sex’, it is important to note that when an accused witch was apprehended, she tended, usually under duress, to name names. This perpetuated a cycle with which women would name other women of their acquaintance, and accuse them of witchcraft as well. In order to attempt to exonerate themselves, these newly accused women would then point their finger at even more women. The hope was that the courts would then pursue those others and release her. This idea of handing in someone’s name to the authorities was known as ‘delation’.[13] Furthermore, women tended to accuse other women in their community if tensions and arguments arose, as illustrated by the fact that quarrels and damaged relationships were nearly always part of the evidence recorded against an accused witch.[14] Of course, men were also responsible for accusing women of witchcraft. Therefore, with both males and females pointing the finger at women, there can be no question as to why the actual number of accused witches were predominately female.

             After understanding exactly who was accused of witchcraft, the question begs to be asked, what sparked the interest in pursuing witchcraft in Europe in the first place? Many historians have attempted to answer this question, but have met with limited success. The most common causes postulated have included social and economic disasters such as plague, famine and class struggles. These factors can all be grouped together to incorporate the greater idea of scapegoating. While it is true, for the most part, that witch-hunting was an attempt to place blame on witches for events which gripped the populace of the time, it must also be noted that individual countries had different reasons for pursuing witches. In Scotland, while plague and famine did occur during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, recent evidence has shown that the periods of strife did not exactly correlate with the peaks of Scottish witch-hunts. However, as sixteenth century Scotland was a largely rural, peasant society, with only about a quarter or a fifth of its population living in towns, these disasters did increase social instability and anxiety, thus paving the way for witchcraft accusations.[15] Conversely, however, in Russia, witchcraft was nearly always connected with outbreaks of famine and disease.[16] Moreover, in Germany, the effectual epicenter of witch-hunts during the Middle Ages, with approximately half of all deaths occurring in the mosaic of territories making up the Holy Roman Empire, it was not what, but who initially incited the rulers to attack witches. There were four main factions of German society that pursued witches: theologians and prelates, who knew nothing of the outside world, but simply preached against the evil of supposed witches; lawyers, who campaigned for witch trials because it was such a lucrative business; the ignorant and usually jealous and malicious common folk, who frequently slandered their neighbors over disputes; and, as it was commonly believed at the time, those people who were actually witches or sorcerers themselves but wanted to remove suspicion from their person and heap it upon others.[17]

            An additional factor for sparking off the massive witch-hunt across Europe may also have included the introduction of new legislation from individual countries. The impetus for witch-hunts began with Pope John XXII’s issuance of his Super Illius Specula in 1326, which, owing to his fear that witchcraft practices were rapidly spreading, called on inquisitors to relentlessly persecute all sorcerers, magicians and other heretics.[18] This triggered many countries to pass their own legislation dealing with witchcraft. New law codes such as the German Carolina in 1532 and the French ordinance of Willers-Cotterets in 1539, combined with their pre-existing old styles of law, opened up the path to the very harsh criminal justice of sixteenth century witches.[19] In addition, Witchcraft Acts were passed in England in 1542 and England and Scotland in 1563. This latter act made witchcraft a criminal offense in statute law for the first time in Scotland. It was actually part of a larger push of legislation that was aimed at curbing immorality.[20] In fact, taken within a proper context, most countries in Europe were also only trying to purify their rampant immorality, of which witchcraft was unfortunately caught up in. What made Scotland different from other nations, however, was the fact that the Witchcraft Act of 1563 imposed the death penalty not only on practitioners of magic, but also on any person who ventured to use their skills.[21] This varied widely from the much less strict stance taken by the majority of other European countries.

Witchcraft was also made a crimen exceptum across most of Europe, with the exception of France and Russia.[22] This meant that confessions alone were enough to convict a witch. Additionally, normally ineligible witnesses were allowed to be heard in such cases, which ultimately would have lead to more convictions.[23]  In tandem with this new introduction of law codes, the legalities for trying witches was taken from the ecclesiastical courts and secularized, which seems to have been an additional factor in promoting prosecutions in Russia, Denmark, Imperial Europe, England and Scotland.[24]

            Law codes merely laid the foundation of witchcraft accusations, but it was torture that really drove the issue home. Most of Europe had rules in place as to when and how severely torture was to be used in criminal cases. Some countries were more severe than others. Scotland appears to have been included within this group. Torture was only legal in Scotland when authorized by the Privy Council or parliament. This suggests that it was only to be used in cases of treason, rebellion, or witchcraft, which by this time came to be understood as a conspiracy against the state, and ultimately the king.[25] Torture commonly used against accused witches took many forms: pricking, whereby a witch would be continuously pricked by a needle until a spot was found that felt no pain, the supposed spot of the mark of the Devil; sleep deprivation; and water tests, where an accused witch would be thrown into a body of water and watched to see if she sunk. [26] If the body sunk, the accused was innocent. Of course, that would have meant that the suspect drowned, but that was the price to pay to prove one’s innocence.

Confessions made under torture in Scotland were legally binding, and in many cases, torture continued until the witch accused several more witches in turn. This experience is shown in sharp contrast with other countries such as France and Germany. Torture was used sparingly in France, as the custom held that if an accused witch survived the torture without confessing, they would be released and their innocence proven. In addition, any confession extracted under duress was deemed ‘null and void’, only being valid if it was repeated after torture ceased, and again in front of a full court.[27] Therefore, the French were most reluctant to use torture, as it provided a path for an accused witch to exonerate themselves. Germany, likewise, had a clear plan in place for the use of torture. The 1532 Carolina code strictly regulated the rules regarding torture use, as well as its intensity and duration: it could only be used when there was already significant evidence indicating the suspect’s guilt; if the suspect withstood the torture, then they were legally vindicated; and torture could not be repeated unless new, more incriminating evidence arose.[28] These rules are quite similar to that of France, and shows how torture was used only in extenuating circumstances, unlike that of Scotland.

            Use of torture suggests a direct link with the monarch, who as head of state would hold the ultimate responsibility for its use. This leads to the question of whether the monarchs of Europe were intimately acquainted with, and took part in, the witch trials or whether it was simply another matter for their councilors to deal with. For the most part, it looks as though none of the monarchs from France, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain or Russia showed any true enthusiasm for such activities. However, there were two exceptions to this monarchial apathy. The first is James VI of Scotland. James had a very personal attachment to the subject of witchcraft, which entered his life during the course of his wedding celebrations. James’ betrothed, Anne of Denmark, was sailing to meet her intended husband when storms sprang up in the North Sea. It was commonly rumored that these perilous seas were conjured up by witches intent on preventing Anne from reaching Scotland. Four witches were ultimately taken into custody and tried. Soon after, James’ first cousin, the Earl of Bothwell, was also implicated in these events, which resulted in Bothwell being accused by some of the East Lothian witches of plotting against the king as well.[29] The four witches were condemned to death and Bothwell was found not guilty and escaped with his life at that time. All of these events, known collectively as the North Berwick Trials of 1590-91, served to convince James that witchcraft needed his immediate attention and had to be dealt with severely. In 1597 he wrote a book called Daemonologie.[30] This work proved to be a guidebook on how to find, accuse and dispense of witches. It contributed greatly to the witch hunts of both Scotland and England. Incidentally, it should be noted that James was the only monarch to write such a book on witchcraft, as well as be the only monarch to act as a judge at witch trials. The second monarch to have a close connection with witch hunts between 1617 and 1625 was King Christian IV of Denmark.[31] The link between these two kings and their witchcraft policies may have stemmed from their new matrimonial connections. Christian also encouraged the prosecution of witches as an attempt to enforce strict moral codes.

            As time passed across Europe, many countries began to ease their witch hunting measures. While France was at the head of the pack when the witch hunt explosion first occurred in the fourteenth century, the Paris parlement, as early as 1588, had already considered instituting an automatic appeal procedure, under which all those convicted of witchcraft would be sent to Paris for a second hearing.[32] At the time it was disregarded, but in a landmark decision in 1624, it passed, followed quickly by several surrounding regional parlements.[33] This act implied that France, or at least parts of it, were exhibiting a legal conscience when it came to accusing and sentencing witches. England was also one of the countries that sought to limit the witchcraft fallout. The Witchcraft Act of 1563 was repealed and replaced by the Witchcraft Act of 1735, which admitted only the crime of pretended witchcraft.[34] By this time, of course, Scotland was inextricably linked with England under a single monarch, so it too adopted this act. However, it is interesting to note that this act was not the result of any initiative from Scotland. Instead, three burghers from the south of England proposed the repeal of the English Witchcraft Acts and the Scottish Act was included through a House of Lords amendment.[35] One can postulate that had Scotland any choice in this matter, it would have forgone the repeal of the 1563 act and continued unabated in its witch hunt.

The European witch hunt was a unique phenomenon in medieval history. There was a complex interplay of differing factors that contributed to it, and every country in Europe treated the subject of witchcraft differently. Scotland generally followed the continental model of witch hunts. There were, nonetheless, several areas in which Scotland did differ from its European counterparts. Firstly, Scottish witchcraft was distinctive from that of Europe in the relative lateness with which the idea and accusations began. Portions of the continent, such as in Germany and France, began prosecuting witches as early as the 1300s, but Scotland did not really enter into the foray until the 1560s. Furthermore, while witch hunts died out across most of Europe in the early eighteenth century, indeed, even as early as the late 1600s in neighboring England, it continued on quite late in Scotland. The last witch, Helen Duncan, was convicted in 1944 using the old Witchcraft Act of 1735.[36] Secondly, Scotland was free to use torture, albeit not always officially sanctioned by the government, to obtain confessions as it pleased. Additionally, those confessions made under torture were legally binding and could result in conviction. This differs dramatically from the situation that was found in both France and Germany where torture was strictly controlled and confessions made under duress were not legal. Thirdly, Scotland was one of very few countries in which the monarch undertook a primary role in the witch hunts. James VI was the only monarch to write a book on the subject of witchcraft, and was also the only monarch that presided as a judge over witch trials. This was a striking deviation from Scotland’s continental contemporaries, who chose a much more hands-off approach. Finally, Scotland was one of the last countries to introduce legislation to quell the turmoil associated with the rampant witch hunts. In fact, if it had not been for England, to which Scotland was bound legislatively, and its introduction of the Witchcraft Act of 1735, Scotland would most likely not have passed such a law at the time. Even with that act in place, Scotland continued to convict witches until 1944. Therefore, it can be seen that with some witchcraft-related topics, Scotland was confined to the continental model and did not distinguish itself in any way. However, when it came to torture, involvement of monarchy and continuation of witch convictions, Scotland was a paradigm of distinction.

Bibliography

Primary sources:

Spee, Friedrich von, Hellyer, Marcus, trans., Cautio Criminalis, or a Book on Witch

Trials (Charlottesville, 2003).

Secondary sources:

Ben-Yehuda, Nachman, ‘The European Witch Craze of the 14^th to 17^th Centuries: A

Sociologists Perspective’, The American Journal of Sociology, 86 (Jul., 1980),

1-31.

Briggs, Robin, Witches & Neighbours: The Social and Cultural Context of European

Witchcraft (Oxford, 2002).

Campbell, John Gregorson, Witchcraft & Second Sight in the Highlands & Islands of

Scotland: Tales and Traditions collected entirely from Oral Sources (Glasgow, 1974).

Collier, Al, ‘The Truth about the Helen Duncan Story’,

<http://www.helenduncan.org.uk> (2007).

Croft, Pauline, King James (New York, 2003).

Golden, Richard M., ‘American Perspectives on the European Witch Hunts’, The History

Teacher, 30 (Aug., 1997), 409-426.

Hsu, Francis L.K., ‘A Neglected Aspect of Witchcraft Studies’, The Journal of American

Folklore, 73 (Jan.-Mar., 1960), 35-38.

Larner, Christina, Enemies of God: The Witch-hunt in Scotland (London, 1981).

Macdonald, Stuart, The Witches of Fife: Witch-hunting in a Scottish Shire, 1560-1710

(East Lothian, 2002).

Maxwell-Stuart, P.G., An Abundance of Witches: The Great Scottish Witch-Hunt

(Gloucestershire, 2005).

Monter, William, ‘Toads and Eucharists: The Male Witches of Normandy, 1564-1660’,

French Historical Studies, 20 (Autumn, 1997), 563-595.

Normand, Lawrence, Roberts, Gareth, eds., Witchcraft in Early Modern Scotland: James

VI’s Demonology and the North Berwick Witches (Exeter, 2000).

Soman, Alfred, ‘The Parlement of Paris and the Great Witch Hunt (1565-1640)’,

Sixteenth Century Journal, 9 (Jul, 1978), 30-44.