The Witch-Cult in Western Europe

6. The Mark

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." 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.'[2]

[1. Scot, Bk. III, p. 43; see also Danaeus, ch. iii.

2. Mackenzie, title x, p. 48.]

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.'[1]

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'.[2] According to Boguet, writing in 1398, 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, où plus ordinairement il marque les Sorciers. La marque des Sorciers est tantost come vne piste ou pied de lieure, & tantost d'autre façon. On en a veu vne, qui auoit vne figure rapportant en grandeur à vn petit denier, du centre de laquelle s'estendoient plusieurs filamens vers la circonference. La marque de la Belcuenotte, qui a esté brulée à Besançon, estoit au dessus de sa nature, vn

[1. Forbes, ii, p. 33.

2 Spalding Club Misc., i, pp. 120, 165. Spelling modernized.]

peu plus bas que le nombril. Celle, dont Guillauma Proby d'Anchay se trouua marquée au col du costé droit, estoit de mesme de la grandeur d'vn petit denier, tirant sur le brun. Iean de Vaux auoit la sieñe an doz, & ressembloit à vn petit chien noir.'[1]

De Lancre in 1609 says that in the Basses-Pyrénées 'comme le Diable faict sa marque, on sent vn peu de chaleur, qui penetre plus on 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 tons 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 bla{n}c de 1'œil gauche, & leur imprime vne marque qui semble vn petit crapaud'] [elsewhere he says 'vne patte de crapaud']; 'par fois dans l'epaule & costé gauche, ou dans la cuisse, leur rompant & dechirant la peau & la chair iusques à effusio{n} de sang; si bien que pendant trois mois ils ont de tres grandes douleurs.'[2]

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'.[3] 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 '.[4] 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." 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

[1. Boguet, pp. 315, 316, 317

2. De Lancre, Tableau, pp. 195, 399.

3. Isobel Inch, p. 16.

4. Whitaker, p. 216.

5. Hale, p. 46.]

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'.[1] 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'.[2] 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'.[3] 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'.[4] In Bute in 1662 'Margaret NcWilliarn 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 3° ane uthyr up her hensh, blew . . . Kat Moore was tried, and it was found undernethe her richt shoulder a little whyt unsensible spott'.[5] 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'.[6] At Paisley in 1678 Annabil Stuart confessed 'that the Devil took her by the Hand and nipped her Arm, which continued to be

[1. Howell, iv, 854-5.

2. Kinloch, pp. 124-6.

3. Bourignon, Vie, p. 223.

4. Sharpe, p. 132.

5. Highland Papers, iii, p. 17.

6. Glanvil, pt. ii, pp. 136, 148, 156.]

sore for half an hour'.[1] 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'.[2] 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'.[3] At Pittenweem in 1704 the 'young lass', Isobel Adams, confessed that the Devil 'put his mark in her flesh which was very painful'.[4]

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."' 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.'[6]; Cameron tabulates the positions of the supernumerary nipple in 105 cases: 196 were situated in thorax, 5 in axilla, 2 in back, 1 on shoulder, 1 outside of thigh.'[7] All writers on the subject agree that the phenomenon is of more common occurrence than is usually supposed, but that many cases pass

[1. Glanvil, pt. ii, p. 291.

2. Scots Magazine, 1814, p. 200.

3. Narrative of the Sufferings, pp. xli, xliv.

4. Sinclair, p. 259.

5. Thompson and Miles, ii, p. 341.

6. Journal of Anatomy, xiii, pp. 436, 447.

7. Id., xiii, p. 153.]

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 Medial 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 tier 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.'[1]

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.'[2]

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 canting: 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

[1. Alse Gooderidge, pp. 8, 9.

2. Elizabeth Sawyer, B 3, obv. and rev.]

off her bigs, whereby she might have been suspected to have been a witch, and laid plaisters to those places." 'Another Evidence deposed that she once heard the said Margaret [Landish] say, that her Imps did usually suck two Teats near the privy parts.'[2]

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.'[3] John Palmer of St. Albans (1649) confessed that I upon his compact with the Divel, hee received a flesh brand, or mark, upon his side, which gave suck to two familiars'.[4] 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.'[5] 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.'[6] At Scarborough in 1651.

'Margery Ffish, widdow, beinge commanded to searche the bodye of Anne Hunnam, otherwise Marchant, who was accused for witchcraft; she, this informante, and Elizabeth Jackson,

[1. Howell, iv, 838, 843, 848, 849, 850, 85 1.

2. Four Notorious Witches at Worcester, p. 4. The place is wrongly given: it should be Essex, not Worcester.

3. Davenport, p. 15.

4. Gerish, The Divel's Delusions, p. 12.

5. Surtees Soc., xl p. 30.

6. Id., xl, p. 38.]

and Eliz. Dale, did accordingly scarche the body of the saide Anne Hunnam, otherwise Marchant, and did finde a little blue spott upon her left side, into which spott this informant did thrust a pinne att which the sd. Ann Hunnam never moved or seemed to feel it, which spott grows, out of her ffleshe or skin at her waste of a great bignesse. Elizabeth Dale informeth upon oath, that she did, together with Margery Ffish, searche Ann Hunnam, otherwise Marchant, her bodye and saith that their was found on her left buttock a blue spott growing out of her fleshe or skin like a greate warte.'[1]

The Kentish witch, Mary Read of Lenham, in 1652, I had a visible Teat, under her tongue, and did show it to many, and it was likewise seen by this Observator.'[2] In the case of the Salisbury witch, Anne Bodenham, in 1652, 'Women searched the Witch in the Gaol, and they delivered on their oaths at the Assises, that they found on her shoulder a certain mark or Teat, about the length and bignesse of the Niple of a Womans breast, and hollow and soft as a Niple, with a hole on the top of it: And searching further, they likewise found in her secret place another Teat, soft, and like the former on her shoulder.'[3] In Yorkshire again, in 1654, Katherine Earle was accused, 'and the said Katherine hathe beene searched, and a marke founde upon her in the likenesse of a papp'.[4] At St. Albans, about 1660, there was a man-witch, who 'had like a Breast on his side'.[5] In the same year at Kidderminster a widow, her two daughters, and a man were brought to trial; 'the man had five teats, the mother three, and the eldest daughter one. When they went to search the woman, none were visible; one advised to lay them on their backs, and keep open their mouths, and they would appear; and so they presently appeared in sight.'[6] Alice Huson, of Burton Agnes, Yorks, in 1664, stated that 'I have, I confess, a Witch-pap, which is sucked by the Unclean Spirit'.[7] Abre Grinset, of Dunwich, Suffolk, in 1665, said, 'The Devil did appear in the form of a Pretty handsom Young Man first, and since Appeareth to her in the form of a blackish Gray Cat or Kitling, that it sucketh of a Tett (which Searchers

[1. Country Folklore, ii, p. 139.

2. Prod. and Trag. Hist., p. 6.

3. Bower, p. 28.

4. Surtees Soc., xl, p. 69.

5. Gerish, Relation of Mary Hall, p. 24.

6. Howell, iv, 827 note.

7. Hale, p. 58.]

since saw in the place She mentioned).'[1] In the same year, also in Suffolk, Rose Cullender was tried for witchcraft:

'The searchers [six women] began at her head, and so stript her naked, and in the lower part of her belly they found a thing like a teat of an inch long, they questioned her about it, and she said, that she had got a strain by carrying of water which caused that excrescence. But upon narrower search, they found in her privy parts three more excrescencies or teats, but smaller than the former: this deponent farther saith, that in the long teat at the end thereof there was a little hole, and it appeared unto them as if it had been lately sucked, and upon the straining of it there issued out white milky matter.'[2]

Temperance Lloyd, a Devon witch, was tried in 1682: 'Upon search of her body this informant did find in her, secret parts, two teats hanging nigh together like unto a piece of flesh that a child had suckt. And each of the said teats was about an inch in length." Bridget Bishop, one of the New England witches, was tried in 1692: 'A jury of Women found a preternatural Teat upon her Body: But upon a second search, within 3 or 4 hours, there was no such thing to be seen.'[4] Elizabeth Horner, another Devon witch, tried in 1696, I had something like a Nipple on her Shoulder, which the Children [who gave evidence] said was sucked by a Toad'.[5] Widow Coman, an Essex witch, died a natural death in 1699: 'Upon her death I requested Becke the midwife to search her body in the presence of some sober women, which she did and assured me she never saw the like in her life that her fundament was open like a mouse-hole and that in it were two long bigges out of which being pressed issued blood that they were neither piles nor emrods for she knew both but excrescencies like to biggs with nipples which seemed as if they had been frequently sucked.'[6], Elinor Shaw and Mary Phillips were executed in Northampton in 1704 for witchcraft: 'The Infernal Imps did Nightly Suck each of them a large Teat, or pieces of red Flesh in their Privy Parts.'[7]

The positions of the marks are worth noting. Of the

[1. Petto, p. 18.

2. Howell, vi, 696.

3. Id., viii, 1022.

4. Mather, p. 137.

5. F. Hutchinson, Historical Essay, p. 62.

6. Gilbert, p. 6.

7 Witches of Northamptonshire, p. 6.]

coloured mark it will be seen from the evidence given above that there were certain well-defined positions, which is in itself a strong suggestion of the artificial character of this mark. In France the usual position was the left shoulder; in the Basses-Pyrénées the left eye, the left side, and the thigh were also commonly marked; the variations given by Boguet are the abdomen, the back, and the right side of the neck. In England it seems that only the hand and wrist were marked; in Somerset the exact position was between the upper and middle joints of the fourth finger of the right hand, probably the 'ring-finger', but whether on the outer or inner surface is not recorded. In Scotland the position is very varied, the right hand, the right side, the shoulder, the back, the neck, and the loin; at Aberdeen the position on the right hand is still further defined as being on the back and on the third finger, i.e. the 'ring-finger'.

Reginald Scot does not distinguish between the two kinds of marks, when he says that if the witch 'have anie privie marke under hir arme pokes, under hir haire, under hir lip, or in her buttocke, or in her privities; it is a presumption sufficient for the judge to proceed to give sentence of death upon her'.[1] But from the positions in which supernumerary nipples are known to occur, it would seem that he is speaking of the 'little Teat' and not of the coloured mark. In six out of the thirty-two cases of supernumerary nipple cited above, the number of nipples is not given; though from the context it would appear that more than one was often found on each of the accused. If, therefore, we allow two apiece for those cases not definitely specified, there were sixty-three such nipples, an average roughly of two to each person; the number varying, however, from one to five (this last being a man). The position of the nipple on the body is given in forty-five out of the sixty-three cases: abdomen 2, axilla 1, buttock 1, fundament 3, groin 2, pudenda 30, shoulder 3, side 3, under tongue 1. In writing of supernumerary nipples and mammae erraticae Williams quotes cases recorded by modern observers, in which the accessory organ occurred on the abdomen, axilla, inguinal region, outer side of thigh, shoulder, and face.'

[1. R. Scot, Bk. II, ch. 5.

2. Journal of Anatomy, xxv, 225 seq.]