tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5022318990784415929.post8296547192858426172..comments2023-10-20T11:17:47.246-04:00Comments on Two Nerdy History Girls: Breakfast Links: Week of October 8, 2018Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5022318990784415929.post-2276082694363696912018-10-13T22:53:01.313-04:002018-10-13T22:53:01.313-04:00The paper on silk mercers was excellent. I am alwa...The paper on silk mercers was excellent. I am always grateful for original sources of information. Helshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02849907428208235392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5022318990784415929.post-6273550978106544162018-10-13T20:07:37.920-04:002018-10-13T20:07:37.920-04:00And now that I have that off my mind, thank you fo...And now that I have that off my mind, thank you for posting this collection, which I look forward to, week after week! :DLucynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5022318990784415929.post-69453487135088083522018-10-13T20:05:54.834-04:002018-10-13T20:05:54.834-04:00Unfortunately, the article on Helen Duncan is some...Unfortunately, the article on Helen Duncan is somewhat misleading, and not very carefully worded. The Witchcraft Act of 1735 did not create prosecutions for witchcraft. Rather, it declared actual witchcraft nonexistent, and prosecuted persons who purported to engage in it. It was the end of historical witch trials.<br /><br />While the author states, at the end, that Duncan went to trial for "fraudulent witchcraft"--correct--the general thrust of the article seems to imply that the law was invoked against Duncan for what she did, rather than what she pretended to do.<br />Lucynoreply@blogger.com