2
Victoria Carr
The North Berwick witch-hunt began in the autumn of 1590 when the bailie of Tranent, David Seton, was suspicious about the late night excursions of his servant, Geillis Duncan. Questioned under torture, she revealed to him the existence of a large group of witches who met throughout East Lothian. Although Seton was particularly interested in witches plotting attacks on himself, he also uncovered hints of plans to cause a storm to coincide with Anne of Denmark’s voyage to Scotland to marry James VI. As a result the king became convinced that a conspiracy, plotted in North Berwick church during Halloween of 1590, had been directed at him personally.
Although the plot against the king became the main matter of the hunt, there were several sub-plots in the drama. Other people, some of them more influential than the bailie of Tranent, developed their own ideas about where the hunt should go. This chapter discusses one of these sub-plots: an attempt by relatives of the eighth earl of Angus, who had died in 1588, to blame his death on witches. Drawn into the hunt as a result of the eighth earl’s death was his widow, Dame Jean Lyon.
I
Archibald Douglas, eighth earl of Angus, was a prominent and controversial political figure, head of the powerful Douglas family and a champion of the radical Protestant cause.1 He had died after a long illness on 5 August 1588, aged only 33, and his biographer David Hume of Godscroft, among others, later reported that witchcraft had been suspected.2 There is no evidence to suggest that any action was taken on this matter before the North Berwick hunt began, but it was only a few months into the hunt that the names of the earl and his countess began to be brought in.
Numerous people from all levels of society were accused of being involved in these alleged attacks, and so the brief involvement of the countess was not wholly unique. Not only was a poor cunning-woman, Agnes Sampson, heavily involved, but so were Barbara Napier and Euphame MacCalzean, both from the higher levels of Edinburgh society. It is through some of the witches from more noble backgrounds that a connection was made with Jean Lyon. Barbara Napier and Janet Stratton, another accused witch, both had connections with the eighth earl of Angus through Jean. Euphame was connected with the couple through her husband.3 Janet Stratton’s background is uncertain, but she definitely knew the countess somehow. Another witch, Richard Graham, had his own connections not only with Francis Stewart, earl of Bothwell, who was to become the most prominent target of the hunt, but also with Bothwell’s enemy, the chancellor, John Maitland of Thirlestane.4
II
Jean Lyon was the daughter of John Lyon, eighth Lord Glamis (c.1544–1578), and his wife Janet Keith, sister of the fourth Earl Marischal. She was probably born in the early 1560s, her parents having married in 1561. She herself was married three times, with each of her marriages having some connection to the North Berwick hunt. Her first marriage, in 1583, was to Robert Douglas, eldest son of William Douglas of Lochleven. William Douglas became the sixth earl of Morton in 1588 after the death of Jean Lyon’s second husband, the eighth earl of Angus (who had also held that earldom). William Douglas, as earl of Morton, was also present during some of the examinations of the North Berwick hunt, which will be discussed later. Robert Douglas, however, was lost at sea in 1585, and there is no evidence that witchcraft was suspected by contemporaries. Jean’s marriage to Robert Douglas produced a son, who eventually became the seventh earl of Morton, and also meant that she had a powerful father-in-law in the sixth earl.5
Two years after the death of Robert Douglas, Jean married Archibald Douglas, eighth earl of Angus. The eighth earl himself had previously been married twice. His first wife, Mary Erskine, had died in 1575, and his second marriage to Margaret Leslie ended in divorce due to her alleged infidelity.6 Jean Lyon was only married to the eighth earl for one year prior to his death, and at the time of his death she was pregnant with his only child. This second marriage of Jean’s was also her second and final marriage into the Douglas family. The importance of this shall be considered later. In May 1590 she was married again, this time to Alexander Lindsay, shortly to become Lord Spynie. Spynie was, by 1590, briefly a favourite of James VI; he had accompanied the king on his voyage to Denmark in 1589–1590. Lindsay’s friendship with James was to be important for Jean.
The approach taken below will be similar to that taken by Louise Yeoman in her exploration of the importance of David Seton to the North Berwick hunt. As a result of Yeoman’s work, we now know that there was a connection between David Seton and the accused witch Euphame MacCalzean, who were related through a mutual father-in-law. Both people were involved in a family feud, which included a substantial inheritance.7 What Yeoman has done here has not only increased our knowledge of the people in the hunt but has also provided an interesting insight into the hunt itself. Yeoman’s approach has inspired the work below, for considering Jean Lyon in the light of the hunt has led to a further appreciation of what was going on in the background during the examinations and trials.
Jean Lyon has been briefly discussed by historians in the light of her connection with the North Berwick witch-hunt. P. G. Maxwell-Stuart deals with the eighth earl of Angus’s death, Jean’s relationship with Barbara Napier and her habit of consulting witches, but he does not ask why this was not taken further, although he is aware of Jean being accused of involvement in the eighth earl’s death.8 Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe also briefly noticed Jean’s presence in the hunt and even expressed surprise that she was able to escape prosecution.9 Even in Sir William Fraser’s Douglas Book, Jean’s association with witches was not ignored, although Fraser did not connect it with the earl’s death.10 These are worthwhile insights into Jean Lyon’s presence in the hunt, and it is time to take them further.
The argument that will be considered here is that Jean’s presence in the hunt was the result of an adversary taking advantage of a situation that could have led to a grave outcome for her. Jean and the eighth earl’s presence in the documents will be discussed in the light of this possible attack. However, even the most repeated idea about her – that she consulted witches – did not cause her to be arrested or examined, and this too must be explored to better understand her presence. Ultimately, the most important question will be: Who would have had the inclination and ability to bring Jean Lyon’s name into the examinations?
As we shall see, the king is unlikely to have instigated the campaign against Jean. James’s letters to both Alexander Lindsay and Jean Lyon reveal his feelings towards the two. In one letter to Jean, concerning a proposed marriage with Alexander Lindsay, he wrote to her that ‘I haue oft promeisit unto you, I sall euer remaine best freinde to you baith, be your patrone in all your adoes, and reuenger of all tortis [i.e. wrongs] that any darr offer to ather of you’. While James showed some affection towards Jean, and declared his wish to defend her, his letter remained quite formal. By comparison, his letter to Lindsay was informal, showing his closeness to his favourite, ‘Sandie’.11 James’s declared willingness to defend Jean could have been important later, when her name was suddenly dropped from the hunt. As for Spynie, Caroline Bingham argues that he was not a typical favourite for James, as the king was less emotionally involved with him.12 James also warned Spynie to ‘mynd Jean Lyon, for her auld tout will mack yow a new horne’ – a proverbial expression, but one that could also have been a joke about the horns of the cuckold.13
This may show that Jean had a dubious reputation, although James generally treated her marriage to his favourite as positive for him. We have little information on the state of her previous two marriages. James also made a similar comment to Jean, saying that he had nothing to add to his previous support of Lindsay except ‘a new tout in an aulde horne’.14 This also suggests that James had spoken directly to Jean on the subject, and that his support of their marriage was more than just a series of letters to the two.15
Lindsay was considered ‘ane great courtiour’ in 1588, and as he was created Lord Spynie in November 1590, he was evidently still in favour then.16 Royal favour might help explain why the entire theme of his wife was dropped from the hunt. Yet during the North Berwick witchhunt Lindsay’s own position in court began to change.17 In 1591, he was trusted enough to apprehend the master of Glamis (Jean’s uncle) for the king, so at least Spynie was still agreeable to some extent to the king.18 By 1592, Lindsay had lost James’s favour, but this was after the danger to Jean had passed, as will be discussed below.
III
Jean’s relationship with the house of Douglas was crucial to her involvement in the hunt. The Douglas family, with their two earldoms, could be either a powerful ally or a dangerous enemy. Part of the predicament that Jean Lyon was in by 1591 can be explained by the position of Scottish women within marriage: women were considered to have closer ties to their natal kin than to the family they acquired through marriage. The Douglases were therefore not inclined to express any loyalty to one who had twice been married into their family but had since married out.19 As for her own kin, the head of the Lyon family was her uncle, Thomas Lyon, master of Glamis. There is little to suggest that Jean had a strong relationship with him, and he tended to pursue his own agenda; he was also connected with the Douglas family and so might not have wanted to defend Jean against them.20 He was at least friendly with Jean’s husband, Spynie, at the time of the latter’s ennoblement in November 1590.21
Central to Jean Lyon’s presence in the hunt was the matter of her second husband, the eighth earl of Angus. It is difficult to have a clear understanding of their relationship; it is almost impossible to understand a relationship four centuries ago, and the marriage only lasted a year.22 When Jean Lyon entered the marriage she already had a child by her previous husband, while the eighth earl had been married twice before with neither marriage having produced children. Whether this caused conflict is difficult to know, but Janet Stratton’s deposition mentioned an ‘eindling’, or jealousy, between Jean Lyon and the eighth earl.23 What this concerned is unknown, but it could have related to Jean’s child and the eighth earl’s lack of an heir. There is also the slight possibility that it could have been related to the possible allusion to the cuckold’s horns discussed above. Nevertheless, before Archibald Douglas died he was almost certainly aware that his countess was pregnant, as it was mentioned in his testament.24 Early modern widows were ‘custodians of property and wealth’.25 This role of the widow is useful in trying to understand Jean Lyon’s position in life. Her widowhood left her with a portion of her husband’s land and wealth, which would have been returned to the heir to the earldom only upon her own death.
The death of the eighth earl was sometimes attributed to witchcraft, even after the hunt. The eighth earl’s biographer wrote that ‘his death was ascribed to witchcraft: and one Barbary Nepair in Edinburgh … was apprehended on suspition, but I know not whether shee was convicted of it or not: onely it was reported that she was found guiltie, and that execution was deferred’. He went on to describe how ‘Anna Simson, a famous witch, is reported to have confessed at her death, that a picture of waxe was brought to her, having A. D. written on it, which (as they said to her) did signifie Archibald Davidson’, which was later revealed to be Archibald Douglas, the eighth earl of Angus.26 David Calderwood, too, briefly described how
Archibald Erle of Angus departed this life taikin away, as was vehementlie suspected, by witchecraft … He gave a prooffe of his religioun and pietie at his last and greatest extremitie; for howbeit he was assured that he was bewitched, yitt refused he all helpe by witches, but referred the event to God. It was constantlie reported that his bodie pynned and melted away with sweates, and, in the meane tyme, the witches were turning his picture in waxe before a fire.27
Spottiswoode’s description of the same events was similar, although it adds that the earl rejected the assistance of Richard Graham, who was later executed as one of the North Berwick witches.28 Although Godscroft, Spottiswoode and Calderwood all wrote long after the events, they were alive during the hunt, so their versions of the events may either reveal what they knew to be true, or at least what they had heard and so what others believed to be true.
Another description of the eighth earl’s death was given by the earl of Bothwell during his trial in 1593. Bothwell’s version of events included the use of witchcraft: ‘thErle of Angishe being sick, his lady sent for me to requyre me to send for Richard Greyme to her husband … And a long tyme after, thErle of Anguishe falling sick againe, his lady requyred me to send, as I did before’.29 The importance of Bothwell’s statement lies in the similarities between his own accusation and the accusation he was laying before Jean Lyon. Although the charge against him was witchcraft rather than consulting with witches, Bothwell was not accused of casting spells himself but of commissioning other witches to do so on his behalf. Jean Lyon, likewise, was clearly believed by some to have had frequent contact with witches such as Agnes Sampson and maybe even Richard Graham.
All these descriptions of the earl’s death can be brought together to describe how the earl’s sickness led Jean to seek help from Richard Graham – help that the earl refused. As Godscroft was closest to the earl, his opinion may be the most important, but he did not discuss Richard Graham as Bothwell, Spottiswoode and Calderwood did. Bothwell certainly knew the earl well – he was married to his sister. Godscroft’s omission of Jean Lyon’s involvement may at least show that the idea of her being involved in the earl’s death did not necessarily persist. At any rate, it may not have taken much effort to drop her name into the hunt if she was already associated both with the eighth earl’s recent death and with consulting witches during that period. We are left with the likelihood that if there were people pushing for her name to be mentioned in the examinations, it was at least partly because they were aware of her real past.
IV
Who could have brought Jean’s name into the hunt? There are not many candidates with the ability, the contacts or the inclination to do this, but there was at least one: the heir to the earldom of Angus. William Douglas, ninth earl of Angus, reappeared again and again in connection with Jean and had obvious reasons to be opposed to her. He was older than the eighth earl and only distantly related to him, being a great-grandson of the fifth earl who had died in 1513, but he was a diligent upholder of the Douglas family interest. He did not gain the earldom immediately, for the king raised a legal challenge against his inheritance. James was himself descended from the sixth earl of Angus, but his claim was rejected by the court of session on the grounds that the sixth earl had entailed the earldom in the male line. James’s claim derived from the sixth earl’s daughter, his own grandmother, Margaret Douglas, countess of Lennox. Had the earldom not been entailed, indeed, it would presumably have been inherited in 1588 by another Margaret Douglas, the eighth earl’s posthumous daughter by Jean.
Jean, together with her future third husband, Alexander Lindsay, incurred the ninth earl’s wrath by supporting the king’s rival claim to the earldom. The ninth earl and Lindsay had a further dispute in June 1590, just after Lindsay married Jean.30 The ninth earl would have been extremely angry with Jean and her new husband by the time of the North Berwick hunt. As a result of the couple’s actions he had to wait until 7 March 1589 to obtain his earldom.31 Upon defeat, James demanded 40,000 merks from the new earl.32 That William Douglas’s brief tenure of the earldom was not included in Godscroft’s History of the Houses of Douglas may indicate that Godscroft did not become a part of the ninth earl’s circle, and thus may not have wished to promote any of the earl’s grudges. This might explain why he did not mention Jean in relation to the eighth earl’s death.
There was more to the ninth earl’s animosity towards Jean and Spynie than the struggle for his earldom. James Lumsden of Airdrie, who seems to have known Jean Lyon through her marriage to the eighth earl, had his own problems with them, which he brought to the attention of the ninth earl. A bond of maintenance and assistance between Lumsden and the ninth earl was concluded on 24 July 1590. The bond related that Lumsden had ‘incurrit the indignation off Dame Jeane Lyone, relict off wmquhill Archibald Erle of Anguis, our predecessour, and Mr. Allexander Lindsay, now hir spous’. Lumsden’s immediate motive was financial, for Jean owed him substantial debts. Among these were ‘nyne thousand twa hundreth and aucht pundis’, ‘the sowme off aucht thousand merkis’, ‘ane zeirlie pensione for the space of twelff zeiris’ and ‘dewties off hir coiunct fie and lyfrent landes of Kinros, the Thomeccane, Lathrow and wtheris’.33 Lumsden’s pursuit of Jean became an issue for the ninth earl of Angus, whose influence could have caused his allies to take advantage of the brief mentions of Jean when they were brought up. Examples of this shall be discussed later.
It was not without precedent for such a bond to hold malicious intent.34 Lumsden’s own issues with Jean can well be seen as a motive for plots or for simply encouraging trouble for the countess. Beyond the items listed in the bond, the lands of Lochleven had been promised to Lumsden on 15 January 1589, five months after the eighth earl’s death. It may be important that in the document Jean refers to her ‘gud friend James Lumsden of Ardrie’.35 The previous month Lumsden was given the feudal right of the marriage of Jean’s infant daughter ‘gotten betwix the ssaid umqhille erle my spous and me’.36 Jean also referred to Lumsden as ‘my vaillielint frieind James Lumsden of Ardraie’.37 These two documents show Jean referring to Lumsden fondly, and yet clearly she failed to keep her promises to him, thus leading to the bond of maintenance as discussed above. Debts seem to have been something that Jean was expert at collecting and not repaying.
In the second half of 1590, soon after the bond of maintenance had been given, James Lumsden was ordered before the privy council regarding a ring that was said to belong to the king, and so Lumsden, and his servants were ‘to be denounced rebels’.38 A few months later, in October, he was brought before the privy council again regarding the same ring, where it was revealed that he ‘ressavit a jewell fra Dame Jeane Lyoun, Countesse of Angus, quhilk, at hir desire, he laid in pledge of a soume of money to Jacob Barroun, burges of Edinburgh, unknawne to the said James that it appertenit to his Majestie’.39 As this event occurred after the bond of maintenance had been written, it is likely that Lumsden’s anger towards Jean was even greater than what is evident from the bond. Once she had caused him to be accused of almost stealing from the king, it is arguable that he would have had a grudge against her that would not disappear easily. His connection with the ninth earl is clearly important, as the ninth earl was in a perfect position to use his power and influence in the North Berwick witch-hunt.
James Lumsden’s place in these events becomes all the more important when considering his role in Spynie’s downfall in 1592. It was reported at the time that ‘some suit is made for Ardrye’s life, who pleads that he came to Leith to talk with Colonel Stewart, having warrant to confer with all men for the furtherance of his proof against Spynie’.40 The incident harmed Spynie’s standing in court and the king’s attitude towards him. That Lumsden was involved in providing evidence against Spynie for Colonel William Stewart to use shows that Lumsden took the issues he had with Spynie seriously. Lumsden took these actions at great personal risk to himself, for he was obviously not meant to be there with Stewart. The result was that the alleged alliance between Spynie and Bothwell was brought to the king’s attention by Colonel Stewart, who accused Spynie of being involved in some of Bothwell’s conspiracies.41
The ninth earl’s connection to the hunt can be drawn closer still. James VI himself had requested Angus to be present in some manner during the hunt. A letter from Angus to Morton shows a connection between the two earls at a time when Morton had already attended at least one examination of witches. Written on 8 April 1591, when Jean’s name was still being brought up, the letter shows how the king had wished for the ninth earl’s presence:
to haue sen justice vsit aganis sic personnes as hes ettellit [i.e. planned] mischewous pratekceis aganis his majesties awin estait and persoune, as also aganis myne and youris Lordshipis wmquhill last predicessoure that died of guid memorie … Seing his majesties intentione tendis bayth to the weillfaire of the countrey, and speciallie to the veillfair and standing of our house.42
Angus thus thought that the witches who had killed the eighth earl were also guilty of involvement in the subsequent conspiracy against the king.
The letter clearly shows that the eighth earl’s death was being taken seriously as a case of witchcraft and that it was a major family issue for the Douglases. If this attitude persisted throughout the house of Douglas, then it is possible that Jean may have had more enemies than just the ninth earl, as her alleged habit of consulting with witches during her marriage to the eighth earl may have been a cause for wider concern. Morton himself had also received a letter from the king regarding the hunt, in which James described how ‘Sathan and his ministeris’ plotted against not only himself, but also ‘our richt traist cousing and counsellour the umquhile erll of Angus’.43 James had also demanded Morton’s presence on 11 April to assist him in the matter.44 If James put all the pieces of the jigsaw in place at this point, then he will have realised that the chief suspect in the death of the ‘umquhile erll of Angus’ was his widow, Jean Lyon.
Morton’s presence in the hunt also extended to the escheat of Barbara Napier. Winifred Coutts’s work shows that James VI gifted the escheat to Mr Robert Leirmont, who then gave it to the earl of Morton, who then ‘maid and constitute the complener and hir airs [Janet Douglas, Napier’s daughter] thair undoutit cessionar, assignay and procurator in rem suam’.45 The interesting route that the escheat took – via Morton – brings up yet again his involvement in the hunt. Morton may have been trying to protect Napier’s family because of their connection with the house of Douglas. Morton was also the grandfather of Jean Lyon’s son, William Douglas, who was to become the seventh earl of Morton. Not much is known about the future seventh earl’s early life and so it is necessary here to consider what little information there is.46 He may have been in the care of the ninth earl of Angus throughout the time of the hunt, giving Angus power over the future earl of Morton. In 1597, William Douglas was residing with the tenth earl of Angus and, according to a licence by James VI, he was to be removed and placed into the care of Jean Lyon.47 From this we know that he had somehow been placed into the care of the earl of Angus instead of Morton. Once again we see the problem Jean faced by marrying outside the Douglas family. It also adds an interesting dynamic to the relationship between the ninth earl and Jean Lyon.
V
Thus Jean Lyon, in 1591, had lost the kinship ties between herself and the Douglases, and she was in debt to many people. Her presence in the hunt and the dates she was mentioned, along with how she was mentioned, are better understood if placed into this context. The first examination that brought Jean Lyon close to the hunt was when the eighth earl’s death was first mentioned, on 15 January 1591. At this date, the death was not ascribed to witchcraft, but merely used to illustrate when another event happened.48
In Agnes Sampson’s examination of January 1591, perhaps later in the month, the subject of the countess was brought into the questioning again, this time more directly. That the accusation concerned Sampson enchanting a ring for Barbara Napier that would cause her to gain ‘Jean Lyon’s favour and love’ is less important than the end of the examination, which says that Napier had ‘sic other ends which are to be revealed in their own time’.49 It may be suggested that this short passage reveals there was an intent to pursue the idea of Jean’s involvement with witchcraft. Such an ominous ending to the examination does set up the idea that at least one of the people present was intent on pursuing the issue further, but unfortunately the document does not say who was present.
Later in January, Janet Stratton made a potentially damaging statement against Jean Lyon. Janet described an incident in 1588 where Agnes Sampson, Barbara Napier and Euphame MacCalzean met because they ‘had something ado concerning a lord’.50 After a possibly leading question, it was revealed that the meeting occurred because ‘the earl of Angus’ last wife called Lyon sent Barbara to Agnes Sampson for the effect because of an eindling betwixt her goodman and her’.51 The indication that they had an unhappy marriage would have had to have contained some degree of truth if anyone who had known the couple was present. Morton had been present at the examination of Janet Stratton the day before, when Jean Lyon was mentioned in reference to being threatened by Euphame MacCalzean, on behalf of Barbara Napier.52 It is therefore probable that Morton was present the following day when Janet Stratton revealed Jean to have consulted for the eighth earl’s death. If Morton was involved in pursuing the subject of Jean, it is likely that there was a general sense of Douglas discontent towards her.
The letter of 8 April from the ninth earl to Morton, discussed above, shows that the king entertained the idea of Jean’s guilt for a few months.53 The idea of the eighth earl being killed by witchcraft was revisited in June during Janet Kennedy’s deposition. Kennedy told how ‘Agnes Sampson, who a summer night betwixt the Midsummer and Lammas had a long small picture of wax in her hand, black hued, which was devised for the earl of Angus’ destruction and put in a … basin full of water and made to grow weak and so to melt away’.54
That this version of events was still being told just before the whole subject of the eighth earl’s death suddenly disappeared from the hunt indicates the possibility of a third party being involved in causing this idea to disappear. It is not always possible to know who was encouraging which lines of questioning and who was even present during some of the examinations and depositions. Apart from the one reference to Morton, it is generally a mystery as to who could have been present at these various examinations. Morton’s name, however, does lend credibility to the argument that it was an attack led by some of the Douglases, which would have no doubt involved the ninth earl of Angus and possibly was even led by him.
A connection between the countess and Barbara Napier continued to appear in the examinations throughout this stage of the hunt. In Napier’s trial, from 8 to 10 May 1591, Napier was accused of having been an intermediary between Jean Lyon and Agnes Sampson, of having consulted with Sampson to win Jean’s favour and of having worked towards the destruction of the eighth earl.55 If it was believed that Napier was involved in the earl’s death, why was the reference to Jean’s involvement in his death not taken further as well? With Napier a constant feature in the references to the countess’s presence in the hunt, it is also interesting that references to Jean Lyon and the death of the eighth earl of Angus disappeared from the hunt at the same time that Barbara Napier’s assizers were tried for wilful error on 7 June. Only when Bothwell brought the subject up himself during his own trial in August 1593 was the issue ever revisited.56
VI
That this trial of Napier’s assizers was arguably one of the most important of the hunt can only make the lack of subsequent references to the eighth earl even more intriguing. It could be that James was actually terrified of witches plotting his own death and thus that the prospect of one of these attackers being freed took all his attention.57 James’s opinion, given in Daemonologie, was that consulting witches was just as punishable as practising witchcraft, so we cannot assume that he would protect those whom he believed to have consulted a witch, especially for the death of their own husband.58 In England, husband-murder was known as petty treason, and in Scotland too it was considered a terrible crime for a woman to commit.59 As far as the king is concerned, we are left with two possibilities: either James was protecting Jean as he had promised or he had become so focused on the prospect of his own destruction that everything else became unimportant. A third possibility is that the motive force behind pursuing the countess’s involvement disappeared for some reason unconnected with the king. It should be borne in mind that the impetus for all the prosecutions declined markedly after the execution of Euphame MacCalzean on 25 June 1591.
The ninth earl of Angus died on 1 July 1591, round about the time when Jean’s name was being dropped – which yet again points to his possible involvement in the attack on the countess. He was succeeded as tenth earl by his son, also William Douglas, but the tenth earl was a Catholic who had his own agenda – one that the rest of his family did not support. After the ninth earl’s death, as we have seen, James Lumsden again attacked Jean and Spynie in 1592, outside the North Berwick witch-hunt. Morton’s involvement hints at a larger discontent among the Douglases concerning Jean. Yet it seems likely that the ninth earl of Angus was the one pushing for an attack on Jean. As has been discussed, an understanding of a Scottish woman’s position within the family of her husband is crucial in explaining how Jean Lyon could have so quickly fallen from favour among the Douglases.
VII
There are thus several reasons why there may have been a move to prosecute Jean Lyon for witchcraft: her marriage to the controversial Spynie, her large debts and people’s perception of her as a consulter of witches around the time that her husband was believed to be murdered by witchcraft. There must be a reason as to why her name was brought into the hunt, then connected with the eighth earl’s death and then suddenly disappeared. It has been argued here that it was a combination of all three of these issues. Related questions are who promoted the attack and whether they had motives other than belief in witchcraft for doing so. Here we can point to her debts owing to James Lumsden and to the fact that her manoeuvres in 1588–1589 incurred the wrath of the ninth earl of Angus. There could well have been more to Jean Lyon’s presence than has thus far been discussed.
Even with the horrific execution of Euphame MacCalzean, and with it a clear signal that status would not be a barrier to witch-hunting, Jean Lyon was still able to escape from the tales that surrounded her during the North Berwick witch-hunt. She died much later, some time between 1607 and 1610, thus managing to outlive many of those caught up in the hunt.
Notes
1. K. M. Brown, ‘In search of the godly magistrate in Reformation Scotland’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 40 (1989), 553–81, at pp. 558, 577–80.
2. David Hume of Godscroft, A General History of Scotland Together with a Particular History of the Houses of Douglas and Angus (Edinburgh, 1648), 432.
3. RMS, v, 1483.
4. Calendar of Border Papers, 2 vols., ed. Joseph Bain (Edinburgh, 1896), ii, 487.
5. J. R. M. Sizer, ‘Douglas, William, seventh Earl of Morton (1582–1648)’, ODNB.
6. George R. Hewitt, ‘Douglas, Archibald, eighth Earl of Angus and fifth Earl of Morton (c.1555–1588)’, ODNB.
7. Louise Yeoman, ‘Hunting the rich witch in Scotland: high-status witchcraft suspects and their persecutors, 1590–1650’, in Julian Goodare (ed.), The Scottish Witch-Hunt in Context (Manchester, 2002), 106–21, at p. 107.
8. P. G. Maxwell-Stuart, Satan’s Conspiracy: Magic and Witchcraft in Sixteenth-Century Scotland (East Linton, 2001), 159–60.
9. Charles K. Sharpe, A Historical Account of the Belief in Witchcraft in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1884), 74–5.
10. Sir William Fraser (ed.), The Douglas Book, 4 vols. (Edinburgh, 1885), ii, 366.
11. [Alexander,] Lord Lindsay, Lives of the Lindsays, 3 vols. (London, 1858), i, 322–3.
12. Caroline Bingham, James VI of Scotland (London, 1979), 115.
13. Sharpe, Historical Account, 75. In its usual form, ‘a new tout [i.e. toot] in an aulde horne’, the proverb meant ‘an old idea expressed as something new’.
14. Fraser, Douglas Book, iv, 34.
15. Ibid.
16. David Moysie, Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland, 1577–1603, ed. James Dennistoun (Bannatyne Club, 1830), 71, 85.
17. Rob Macpherson, ‘Lindsay, Alexander, first Lord Spynie (c.1563–1607)’, ODNB.
18. Moysie, Memoirs, 86–7.
19. Christine Peters, Women in Early Modern Britain, 1450–1640 (Basingstoke, 2004), 7.
20. Michael J. Lyon, ‘Family and Politics in Scotland, 1578–1596, with Particular Reference to the Master of Glamis’ (University of Stirling PhD thesis, 2005), 204.
21. Robert Bowes to Lord Burghley, 7 November 1590, CSP Scot., x, 416.
22. Keith M. Brown, Noble Society in Scotland: Wealth, Family and Culture from Reformation to Revolution (Edinburgh, 2000), 155; Robin Macpherson, ‘Francis Stewart, 5th Earl Bothwell, c.1562–1612: Lordship and Politics in Jacobean Scotland’ (University of Edinburgh PhD thesis, 1998), 136.
23. Normand and Roberts (eds.), Witchcraft, 169.
24. NRS, Edinburgh Commissary Court, testament of Archibald Douglas, eighth earl of Angus, CC8/8/20.
25. J. S. W. Helt, ‘Memento mori: death, widowhood and remembering in early modern England’, in Allison M. Levy (ed.), Widowhood and Visual Culture in Early Modern Europe (Aldershot, 2003), 39.
26. Hume, General History, 432.
27. David Calderwood, History of the Kirk of Scotland, 8 vols., ed. Thomas Thomson (Wodrow Society, 1842–1849), iv, 680.
28. John Spottiswoode, History of the Church of Scotland, 3 vols., eds. Michael Russell and Mark Napier (Spottiswoode Society, 1847–1851), ii, 389–90.
29. Calendar of Border Papers, i, 487.
30. Bowes to Burghley, 20 June 1590, CSP Scot., x, 368.
31. APS, iii, 588, c. 92 (RPS, 1592/4/114).
32. RPC, iv, 360n.
33. Fraser, Douglas Book, iii, 296–7.
34. Jenny Wormald, Lords and Men in Scotland: Bonds of Manrent, 1442–1603 (Edinburgh, 1985), 116.
35. NRS, Dame Jean Lyon to James Lumsden of Airdrie, 18 January 1589, GD150/1956.
36. This would have enabled Lumsden, once the daughter reached the marriageable age of 12, to offer her a suitable marriage partner and to collect a penalty in the event of a refusal. Lumsden and Jean seem thus to have expected at this point to remain friends for some considerable time.
37. NRS, Jean Lyon to Lumsden, December 1588, GD150/482.
38. RPC, iv, 51.
39. Ibid., 537.
40. CSP Scot., x, 771.
41. Sir James Balfour Paul (ed.), The Scots Peerage, 9 vols. (Edinburgh, 1904–1914), viii, 100.
42. Fraser, Douglas Book, iv, 187.
43. Registrum Honoris De Morton, 2 vols., ed. Thomas Thomson, Alexander Macdonald and Cosmo Innes (Bannatyne Club, 1853), i, 170.
44. Ibid.
45. Winifred Coutts, The Business of the College of Justice in 1600 (Stair Society, 2003), 183–4.
46. Sizer, ‘Douglas, William, seventh Earl of Morton (1582–1648)’, ODNB.
47. Fraser, Douglas Book, iv, 40–1.
48. Normand and Roberts (eds.), Witchcraft, 152.
49. Ibid., 157.
50. Ibid., 168.
51. Ibid., 169.
52. Ibid., 166–7.
53. Fraser, Douglas Book, iv, 187.
54. Ibid., 185.
55. Ibid., 249–51.
56. Calendar of Border Papers, i, 487.
57. Brian P. Levack, Witch-Hunting in Scotland: Law, Politics and Religion (New York, 2008), 34.
58. Normand and Roberts (eds.), Witchcraft, 378.
59. For a case of husband-murder in 1600, see Keith M. Brown, ‘The laird, his daughter, her husband and the minister: unravelling a popular ballad’, in Roger Mason and Norman Macdougall (eds.), People and Power in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1992), 104–25. The wife’s crime in this case was murder, but, as was being envisaged with Jean Lyon, she had not carried out the killing herself but had instigated a servant to do it.