> they were just so biased that every little thing was a proof to their eyes. While all the accusations were indeed false [1], they actually had surprisingly h

> they were just so biased that every little thing was a proof to their eyes. While all the accusations were indeed false [1], they actually had surprisingly high standards of proof, and the modern perception of witch hunts is largely an ahistoric lie [2]. If there's one thing to learn from this, it's to question the stories we're told - both their content and their selection. [1] At least in the sense that witchcraft isn't effective, not that there was nobody practicing witchcraft: https://www.reddit.com/r/WitchesVsPatriarchy/ https://www.reddit.com/r/WitchesVsPatriarchy/ [2] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-malleus-maleficarum https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-malleus-malefic... - Quoting at length because it's too funny: How do you prove an accusation? Kramer’s preferred method is with at least three witnesses (although judges are permitted to occasionally convict with fewer). Who may serve as a witness? [..] It would seem that maybe the suspect’s enemies should not be allowed to testify against her, because they might be motivated by grudges. On the contrary side, most witches are people of bad reputation who have alienated their whole village [..] So Kramer compromises again: enemies may testify, but not mortal enemies. A person is considered a mortal enemy of a suspect if one of them has tried to kill the other, or their families have a blood feud, or something of that nature. [..] witch hunters are nomadic types. They don’t know who is mortal enemies with whom in every little village. [..] Kramer’s proposed solution is to ask the suspect to list off all her mortal enemies; if she names the witness, something is afoot. (Some of you may have already noticed a loophole here. A History Of The Inquisition In Spain describes the case of one Gaspar Torralba, accused in 1531: “There were thirty-five witnesses against him, for he was generally hated and feared. In his defence he enumerated no less than a hundred and fifty-two persons, including his wife and daughter, as his mortal enemies, and he gave the reason in each case which amply justified their enmity . . . The tribunal evidently recognized the nature of the accusation; he was admitted to bail, July 1, 1532, and finally escaped with a moderate penance.”)