Marcelo Tibau

After the arrest of a woman accused of witchcraft, if she was afraid, it would prove her guilt; if she was not afraid, it would also prove her guilt

Friedrich Spee von Langenfeld was a German Jesuit priest who heard the confessions of condemned witches. He criticized the inquisition’s criminal process and witch hunts. In 1631, he wrote a book titled “Cautio Criminalis” (“Prudence in Criminal Cases”), where he sharply described the decision tree for condemning witches. According to Spee, the process essentially cornered the accused in such a way that any reaction could be interpreted as guilt. 

In the book, the Jesuit examines the paradoxical standards applied during witch trials, demonstrating how any aspect of a woman’s actions or life decisions could be manipulated to “confirm” her guilt in witchcraft. The process would unfold as follows:

If the accused witch had led a dishonorable life, she was deemed guilty; conversely, a virtuous life was also seen as evidence of guilt, as it was believed witches would feign virtue to deceive others. Upon arrest, if a woman showed fear, it was taken as a sign of guilt; if she showed no fear, this too was evidence, suggesting witches would pretend innocence. Faced with accusations, she had two choices: flee, which would be seen as an admission of guilt, or stay, which was interpreted as the devil’s influence to claim her soul. 

Check the full article on Substack or Medium.