Notions of insanity in a seventeenth century Scottish legal case

Abstract

In a legal action in 1669, the will of Jean Stewart was disputed on the grounds that the testator was ‘furious’ and hence incapable of making a valid will. This raises the question as to how contemporaries conceptualised madness and how they determined whether someone was insane. By examining a pleading, that of the advocate on behalf of the will’s main beneficiary, indications are obtained as to contemporary notions of insanity based on Galenic medicine incorporating humoralism and animalistic models. The pleading also illustrates the kinds of evidence used to determine whether a person was ‘furious’ or not. In this, the views of Scottish and English jurists appear to have been very similar. Another interesting aspect of the case is that it suggests the use of medical testimony in determining madness almost a century before its first recognised use in English courts.