The simple question that later European witch-hunts often failed to ask.
How can you prove it?
If you could gather up the same level of evidence that someone had been practicing witchcraft, in the context you specified, as you could with any other crime, you could get someone condemned.
If memory serves, poisoning was prosecuted under the same law/name, despite the much, uh, clearer cause-and-effect of poisoning, so even when the law comes up, it’s not always related to magic.
But if you couldn’t prove that they were practicing it, just that someone was in the area? If you couldn’t prove that they were practicing witchcraft, and not perfectly licit rituals (“What’s the difference?”, you ask? Whatever sounds most convincing. “This is an old and honored practice performed by our forefathers, and I can prove it” is convincing), if you couldn’t prove that the rituals were used or meant to harm you or someone else?
And what is your proof? Do you have a confession? Intent? Can you prove they had the ability to do so? Can any proof be credibly argued to be forged by someone else, even if not necessarily you? Witnesses? Did the witnesses actually see the crime in action, not just its effects? Are the witnesses reliable? Roman law was all about credibility of testimony, to an insane degree.
Witchcraft was criminal, so it had high standards for obtaining a conviction, and most often, when you see actual successful prosecution of witchcraft in the Empire or Late Republic, it’s just one accusation out of many, the sort of “And you can SEE this person is the kind of fellow to do these horrible things, because they TRIED witchcraft too!” more than an attempt to actually prove the individual charge - an attempt to lend credence to the other charges by circumstantial evidence (which was not invalid by Roman law).
Most Roman law was civil rather than criminal, and that was much more “He-said-she-said”, where whoever had the better argument would come out the victor. That being said, if both parties were credible and no clear evidence in a civil trial presented, oftentimes the defendant would just be asked to take a public oath that they were innocent of what they were accused of, and that would be the end of it. After all, a good, upstanding citizen wouldn’t ruin their reputation and risk the wrath of the gods on their head, would they?
Oooh interesting. Why was that?
The simple question that later European witch-hunts often failed to ask.
How can you prove it?
If you could gather up the same level of evidence that someone had been practicing witchcraft, in the context you specified, as you could with any other crime, you could get someone condemned.
If memory serves, poisoning was prosecuted under the same law/name, despite the much, uh, clearer cause-and-effect of poisoning, so even when the law comes up, it’s not always related to magic.
But if you couldn’t prove that they were practicing it, just that someone was in the area? If you couldn’t prove that they were practicing witchcraft, and not perfectly licit rituals (“What’s the difference?”, you ask? Whatever sounds most convincing. “This is an old and honored practice performed by our forefathers, and I can prove it” is convincing), if you couldn’t prove that the rituals were used or meant to harm you or someone else?
And what is your proof? Do you have a confession? Intent? Can you prove they had the ability to do so? Can any proof be credibly argued to be forged by someone else, even if not necessarily you? Witnesses? Did the witnesses actually see the crime in action, not just its effects? Are the witnesses reliable? Roman law was all about credibility of testimony, to an insane degree.
Witchcraft was criminal, so it had high standards for obtaining a conviction, and most often, when you see actual successful prosecution of witchcraft in the Empire or Late Republic, it’s just one accusation out of many, the sort of “And you can SEE this person is the kind of fellow to do these horrible things, because they TRIED witchcraft too!” more than an attempt to actually prove the individual charge - an attempt to lend credence to the other charges by circumstantial evidence (which was not invalid by Roman law).
Most Roman law was civil rather than criminal, and that was much more “He-said-she-said”, where whoever had the better argument would come out the victor. That being said, if both parties were credible and no clear evidence in a civil trial presented, oftentimes the defendant would just be asked to take a public oath that they were innocent of what they were accused of, and that would be the end of it. After all, a good, upstanding citizen wouldn’t ruin their reputation and risk the wrath of the gods on their head, would they?
Thanks!
Rome once again ends up feeling kind of modern, although not right across the board.