Talk:Ronald Hutton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]


Contents

[edit] Objectivity

"Hutton also seems to have embraced many of the ideas he writes about and cannot be considered, from the academic point of view, to be entirely objective."

Could this be clarified? It's not very useful as written. —Ashley Y 01:40, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this otherwise. —Ashley Y 05:04, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Done. —Ashley Y 07:29, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Honestly, I must admit that, knowing what I know of propper academic protocol, I cannoit term Hutton a very objective scholar by any stretch of the term! A variety of themes keep cropping up in his work that are deeply problematic. For example, when it was brought to his attention that Norman Cohn lied about Margaret Murray, he refused to qualify his endorsement of him in any way! Moreover, he even mischaracterized Carlo Ginzburg's literature in a manner that makes it seems as though Ginzburg is saying something else entirely-- JB Russell and Norman Cohn have also done this, probably because the conclusions Ginzburg reaches, that is basided upon physical and documented evidence, is not what British academia has reached. Many of his arguments are also rather feeble and fail to take into account very important qustions.

He is also overtly pedantic, to the point of audacity! Hungerian Prof. Eva Pocs has found (performing the largest study to date) that there's definately a shamanistic and folkloric antecedant to medieval witchcraft belief. A conclusion that Hutton thoughtlessly reject as inconsequential, because, he says, she uses the term "shamanistic" (a noted similie, rather than any sort of metaphor between Europe and Siberia/Arctic tribal belief!). Hutton argues, pedantically, that any term with the prefix "shaman-" in it is ONLY to be used when refering to beliefs in regions of the arctic north and Siberia, apparently despite the fact that no such metaphore or direct parallels were intended. C'mon, Ron! You're better than this!

His books are also full of intimidation tactics. As an example: he says, "no scholar with a real knowledge of the middle ages" would state that the Green Man foliate carvings were images of any beloved Deity, or pre-Christian. However, I can think of at least one medievalist that does: Samantha Riches in her monograph, St. George. Such statements are usually meant to silence any minority opinions within any given field. For example, he keeps saying, "most British schoalrs" this, or "scholars in Folklore believe" that! But, where are the reoutible scholars within any given academic field that believe differently than he? They are entirely missing from his books.

In fact, the most worriesome aspect of Hutton, as a scholar, is that his texts are works of polemics, rather than objective historiographies that are, in any way, BALANCED; he's keen on ONLY using the say-so of those scholars that agree with him.

In all honesty, the impression I got while reading his books, and seeing various public statement, is that British academia generally looks down its noise severely at American and European scholars, as though they're more "rigorous" than anyone else. In fact, I was surprised to note the differing methodology adopted by Britain as opposed to continental Europe-- unfortnately, it appears to me that British scholars (at least Hutton) view European scholars as inconsequential, especially when they relay supportive evidence that directly counters British reductionism.

I could go on, and on, re: the problematic nature of Ronald Hutton as a scholar. Especially when many modern readers accept his unsubstantiated material as though they were empiriucal facts. Often, one will also see Hutton failing to demarcate between what is fact, and what is his opinion merely guised as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.177.31.25 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Hutton, Cohn and Murray

I've read Cohn and he cites extracts from Murray, together with details (from the original witchcraft texts) of what she left out. The extracts (fantasy sequences) from her tie up with the Sacred Texts online copy of her work. Are you saying Cohn made up the texts that he says she left out?

--TonyinJersey 10:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the above comments relate to this debate between Jani Farrell-Roberts and Hutton. I haven't checked her assertions, but she claims that Murray didn't in fact leave out many of the things Cohn accused her of leaving out. If you decide to look into this, I'd be intrigued to hear your findings... Fuzzypeg☻ 05:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've checked my copy of Cohn, and the main arguments come on pages 112ff, where he cites Murray on Forfar and Gowdie's confession at Nairn. In once instance dots ... are used by her to exclude fanatasy elements, in another, a dash. The exclusion of these paragraphs gives the impression by Murray that the trial records are presenting a naturalistic/realistic account of sabbats, and removes all references to fantasy elements (flying out to sea, dragging a ship down underwater by pulling on the cable, shrinking to the size of bees etc.) Cohn's argument is that once you re-instate the fantasy element in the texts (which is sizable) the accounts cannot be taken at face value, and that you cannot pick and choose naturalistic elements to fit your case (much as David Strauss argued about gospel miracle stories).

--TonyinJersey 13:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course. I understand Cohn's argument quite well. As does Jani Farrell-Roberts. What I'm interested in is her argument against Cohn and whether it holds any water. Since you've done such a good job of briefly summarising Cohn, I'll try to summarise Farrell-Roberts: she states that many of the fantastical details which Cohn claims Murray left out she in fact discussed at length; Farrell-Roberts provides the references for these sections in Murray. "I had given the supporting references, showing that all but one of the allegations was completely untrue in that she had not omitted the texts – and, in the exception, it would not have discredited either her or the person she quoted if she had included it."
So if all these elements are indeed included in Murray's books, why didn't Cohn see them? Perhaps they're dealt with in a different paragraph? What's the story? It wouldn't surprise me if Cohn hadn't read Murray properly; I've seen this kind of sloppiness in other academic histories. Hutton himself, for example, seemed unaware of Gardner's chapter on the ancient Mystery traditions in Witchcraft Today: Discussing Pan in Triumph, Hutton states that only one of the ancient mystery religions contained the theme of a dying and resurrected god (the mysteries of Attis); this is completely incorrect, since the famous Orphic Mysteries, the Dionysian Mysteries and others had this as a central theme. Gardner was better informed here than Hutton, and spent a whole chapter discussing it; so did Hutton actually read Gardner's book, and if so how did he make such a gross oversight?
We have a simple question of fact here: is Farrell-Roberts correct? Did Cohn misrepresent Murray, or is Farrell-Roberts misrepresenting Murray? I haven't got Cohn's book, but I can try to remember to check the refs in Murray when I get home... Fuzzypeg☻ 23:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've checked a number of Cohn's extracts from Murray against Murray's book (e.g. at http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/wcwe/wcwe05.htm) and they tie up exactly as he quotes them, with the omitted sections he prints after. It doesn't look as though Cohn has been sloppy, and Farrell-Roberts in her article curiously says Murray does deal with the fanatasy elements she left out, but I can find no to flying out to sea and sinking a ship, for example. Quite how that ties up with Farrell-Roberts notion that flting represented visionary experiences to an "otherworld", I do not know, but it is not presented as such, and Murray does not deal with that story at all. Of course if fanatasy elements are taken allegorically or symbolically, they can be explained away, but it seems that Farrell-Roberts brings one or two assumptions to the text; in any case, her allegations against Cohn on what he quoted and what was there are false.

--TonyinJersey 12:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thanks for checking that out. It makes me want to read Cohn properly. I must find a copy. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I've finally checked Cohn, and checked Jani Farell-Roberts' references, and she is correct in every instance. The reason why you didn't find those particular sections of text in The Witch-Cult in Western Europe (1921) is because they instead appear in The God of the Witches (1931), which quotes many fantastical testimonies. However The Witch-Cult itself, while not including these particular passages, has plenty of other fantastical material, including shape-changing, flying through the air by means of baby-fat ointments, riding in the air on a stick, etc. Murray deals with these elements at length, and Jani Farrell-Roberts is quite correct that she cannot justly be accused of misrepresenting the fantastical nature of these testimonies.
As Farrell-Roberts points out, Cohn does mention that he is critiquing both Murray's books, however even if he were only critiquing The Witch-Cult his conclusions would still be unjust. Although Murray did perhaps try too hard to invent prosaic explanations for these fantasy elements, she can't be accused of covering them up.
I would suggest that Cohn's complaint was really with Arno Runeberg, who in his 1947 book queried why plausible-sounding situations should be dismissed as "hallucinations". Runeberg seems to have conveniently ignored the numerous fantastical details that Murray mentioned in her books, as has Cohn.
This all reinforces my point above, that if you're going to critique someone's work you'd better actually read them properly and evaluate their evidence. Farrell-Roberts proves, upon evaluation of her evidence, to be entirely correct. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still unclear. Farrell Roberts states that "I had discovered that an historian, Norman Cohn, that Hutton had strongly endorsed, and put to much use, was demonstably highly inaccurate in quoting from his sources", and later "I checked Cohn to discover the texts that Murray had allegedly omitted." Well, while Murray may have addressed those elements elsewhere, the passages he quotes from Murray do have the ommissions he says and are accurately quoted. Can you point me to pages in Cohn where you think this is not the case and he inaccurately quotes Murray, which is the charge given by Farrell Roberts? It seems Farrell Roberts is making two charges (a) that Cohn is inaccurate in his quotations from Murray and (b) that the arguments he draws from this are addressed elsewhere in her books. While (b) may well stand, and Farrell Roberts provides some good arguments in this respect, (a) does not, and by conflating the two, Farrell Roberts is making some very inaccurate statements herself. It is one think to say that Cohn is wrong when he says Murray meant such and such, but quite another to say that he quoted her inaccurately. I think we need to separate the two issues.

--TonyinJersey 12:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cohn states that Murray is misleading the reader by purposely excluding fantastical elements. He cites Murray's quotations from trial records with ellipsis (...) or a dash (—) indicating lacunae in the quotation, and points out, correctly, that these lacunae contain fantastical details of the testimony that might incline a reader to conclude they were hallucinations or made up. However Cohn's assertion is not just that these sections have been removed from the quote, but that Murray has entirely excluded them and many other fantastical details from her books in order to support her position that these were records of real events. This is quite unfair, since she has liberally discussed fantastical details of testimonies in The Witch Cult and even more so in The God of the Witches. Unfortunately I don't have the books in front of me, or I could give you copious citations from The Witch Cult alone, talking about shape-changing, flying astride a straw, etc. And indeed she has not excluded from her books the passages that Cohn accuses her of covering up (except in a single case), for they appear in The God of the Witches. As the books stand they still contain plenty to suggest that these testimonies were, at least in part, hallucinations or made up.
The thing is, Murray refers to the same trials multiple times throughout her books, and as might be expected, she doesn't quote the entire trial in full every time she wants to discuss some aspect of it. By the time she gets to discussing the witches' feast, which is the section Cohn makes most of his complaint about, she has already discussed many of the fantastical themes in depth. Why then is it so bad that she cut to the chase and discuss the feast itself, passing over other themes?
My explanations here are basically repeating those given by Jani Farrell-Roberts, and reading her should have answered your questions. I will check when I get home that I have faithfully represented Cohn's charge against Murray (bold italics above), but it seems inescapable that he is unjustly misrepresenting Murray's work.
By the way, don't imply from any of this that I place any faith in Murray's scholarship. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Farrell Roberts statements - which I give in quotes above - says "he is highly inaccurate in quoting from his sources", and while he may be guilty of selective quoting from Murray (an ironic accusation, since it is his own against her), he cannot be accused of that. That is why I make the distinction between what FR has said, and what she intends to say (and does say elsewhere).

--TonyinJersey 06:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "quoting". If Cohn says Murray's works do not contain certain passages but in fact they do, then that is in a sense a misquotation (in the sense of incorrectly citing, rather than incorrectly excerpting). You're right that this could be mildly misleading (and of course these words don't appear in the published debate but in her web-page introduction). But it's only misleading if you don't read the article. She managed to clearly convey to me exactly what she meant, before I went looking into the books themselves.
Anyway, her case against Cohn is still pretty conclusive. (And sorry, I didn't check Cohn last night; life took over. I'll try to do it soon...) Fuzzypeg☻ 22:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've checked Cohn. I have to agree, his charge against Murray is at first unclear; he talks about "what she passes over in silence", and says that she contrives by her arrangement of quotations to give the impression that a number of perfectly sober accounts of the sabbat exist. But elsewhere he flatly says that "she does not quote" a certain section (which she does), and since he doesn't hint that she included any fantastical elements in her books at all, the implication for the reader is certainly that she has excised all fantasy completely.
More than this, the way he quotes from Murray clearly indicates that he is considering her works in general, not just localised sections (this is a real cracker, considering how he castigates Murray for hiding things in ellipses): in one of his quotes from Murray he inserts three little dots of his own — indistinguishable from her ellipsis later on — which represents a gap of 44 pages! i.e. the quote begins on p. 100 of The Witch Cult and ends at p. 144. His complaints cannot possibly be about the local arrangements of individual quotations if he himself has cobbled these quotations together from widely-scattered bits! In another case he presents a single section of narrative, with the first half quoted from Murray page 141, the second half from page 98 (although in this case he gives each section its own separate endnote).
But regardless of whether you consider Cohn to have strictly "misquoted" Murray, he's certainly done a hatchet-job on her with his claim that she contrived, in full knowledge of the data, to misrepresent it to her readers. I would instead level that charge at Cohn himself. He says she excised fantasy elements; but it is he who has excised them, not she. Fuzzypeg☻ 07:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it interesting thatprofessional scholars have failed to notice Cohn's mendacious pedantry, and one cannot help but seem to notice that this makes scholars whom dismiss Murray look sloppy. After all, if they had bothered to read Murray's books, they might have noticed that Cohn had made demonstrably false statements against her. So...one must wonder: Why haven't they? In fact, one Gardnerian scholar that wrote an academic essay called "Collars and Scholars" where he quips that it seems as though scholars are using Cohn to the extent where it has seemingly absolved them of even having to actually read her books. So, again, one must wonder: Why have no Professional scholars that HAVE read both Murray and Cohn attempoted to challenge him? Though, those Pagan freelance scholars that have [eg. Margot Adler] questioned Cohn, regardless of the justification (Adler correctly points out his ageist tactics, as does Arthur Evans-- author of "Witchcraft and the Gay Counterculture"), have come under fire by Ronald Hutton who rejects such criticism as "fleetings and inadiquite", and then defending Cohn's material as a "formiddible work". However, Cohn's primary anti-thesis probably results for two reasons: 1.) This relatively harsh criticism probably arises from Cohn's post-WWII sympathy towards the Holocaust victims and its survivors (being, himself, of Jewish heritage), which he believed to be the result of irrational Nazi fears (for which there is ample suggestion). And, 2.) at the time of writing, Gardnerianism was greatly expanding and making headlines (Murray even wrote the Introduction to Gerald Gardner's moving testimony, Witchcraft Today!), and Cohn simply saw it as another form of "the irrational" (a concept he viewed as proto-Nazi in essence) or a superstitious cult (to which he was deeply opposed as a rationalist); indeed, he probably viewed it as his duty to prove its claims an impossibility, without which, it would become (he hoped) impotent and not pose any psycho-sociological harm to relevant Western culture. Hence, we have pointed out his primary, and most blatant, bias. But, of course, none of this excuses him from having lied about Murray!

199.120.81.45 05:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)A Pagan-Witch & Freelance Researcher

[edit] Hutton and the Murray Thesis

Hutton gives details of his main sources for the low esteem in which he holds Murray as Alan Macfarlane, Keith Thomas and (above all) Norman Cohn (see Hutton 1991, 301-6 and 331-4; 1999, 362-3, and sources cited there). However, in his essay of 2000 in FolkorePaganism and Polemic : The Debate over the Origins of Modern Pagan Witchcraft, he has also kept up with more modern writers whose research also discredits the Murray thesis - "During the 1990s, British historians have emerged among those at the forefront, the work of Lyndal Roper, Robin Briggs, James Sharpe, Diane Purkiss, and Stuart Clark being particularly noteworthy (Hutton 1999, 378-81, and sources cited there). None have found any basis for characterising early modern witchcraft as paganism." So the idea that he is only drawing on one or two lines of research is incorrect; he has also done original research on witch trial numbers.

--TonyinJersey 13:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If Hutton has indeed put in the research, his writings don't reflect that research.
His statement that you quote above is misleading, the implication being that there is not a hint of paganism in witchcraft practices. I haven't read Roper, Briggs, Sharpe, Purkiss and Clarke, but I have read Cohn and Thomas and neither of them claim that there was no paganism involved in witchcraft-related beliefs. I believe this quote is pretty representative: "English witchcraft [...] was neither a religion nor an organisation. Of course, there were many pagan survivals — magic wells, calendar customs, fertility rites — just as there were many types of magical activity. But these practices did not usually involve any formal breach with Christianity, and were, as often as not, followed by men and women who would have indignantly repudiated any aspersions upon their religious faith. In any case, they were quite unconnected with the witch-trials. The prosecution of a witch was not an inquiry into a heretical religion, but was usually stimulated by an allegation of maleficium". This from Keith Thomas' excellent book Religion and the Decline of Magic p. 516.
Hutton downplays so many aspects of the works he cites that it's not funny. He downplays the age and size of the cunning-folk tradition, by avoiding any mention of cunning-craft prior to the 18th century, so that it seems like a recent and quite minor phenomenon, which is anything but the case, according to Macfarlane and Thomas. He creates a sharp and artificial distinction between witchcraft and cunning-craft that none of his sources seem to make, even castigating Charles Leland for translating stregheria as "witchcraft" rather than cunning-craft; his intention seems to be to reinforce the division from witchcraft, while Cohn, Thomas, Monter and Macfarlane all explicitly say that this distinction can't be clearly made. Macfarlane gives many examples of contemporary sources using the terms interchangeably. Hutton downplays the continuity of pagan practices into the witch-trials, and later into the 20th century, by giving many examples of "lack of proof" for earlier continuity, which flies in the face of Monter, Thomas and Midelfort; he downplays any possibility that folk-magical techniques could have derived from early practices, again through depicting cunning-craft as a recent phenomenon in which most practitioners either made up their charms according to individual whim or received them by mail-order from London. Thomas and Cohn discuss the old provenance of several cunning-folk techniques at length.
So in fact early modern witchcraft quite clearly displays a number of pagan survivals, as many of these authors have explicitly said. This is further confirmed and traced in detail by Carlo Ginzburg. The only remaining question is, can these survivals be considered "religious"? Were they merely unconscious folkloric survivals without any religious weight to them, or did they still carry some strength of faith?
Sure, all deny that Murray's thesis is realistic. So do I. Her evidence for witchcraft as an organised religion is not convincing. The evidence she provides doesn't even convincingly support an unorganised religion. However others such as Ginzburg and Eva Pocs have fleshed out the "pagan" elements that Cohn and Thomas identify, and given many examples of people who held these beliefs very dearly, with a strong intensity of faith. Sure these people were operating within the context of Christianity, but these ecstatic beliefs and practices were central to their faith. Religion is a funny thing, and one person's view of a religion can be very different to another's. We may have difficulty now seeing the faith of these old accused witches through their eyes, but it seems clear that their "Christianity" was as much built around their ecstatic experiences — part of an ancient pagan continuum according to Ginzburg — as it was built on the teachings of the church.
So now is there "any basis for characterising early modern witchcraft as paganism"?
All in all, if you read Hutton's sources you're in for a surprise. His views don't reflect theirs. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Lindal Roper researched the German sources extensively for her book "Witch Craze", but didn't come up with a shred of paganism, unless you count loosely attached beliefs in the evil eye, and curses. But there is a lot about bad harvests, the breakdown of the hierarchy of civil authority, the fracture of the Reformation, and the scapegoating that resulted, mostly of women. She also sees a fear of older women, asking how could the old woman support herself, in a society where women's status was closely tied to their reproductive capacity? The old women acted as midwives, helped the mothers with the infants, and could also milk cows; in these capacities, they were placed in the worst possible place when children died, and milk went off; if men were impotent, it was felt that this came from the baleful presence of the infertile woman. And fears of fertility also come into the pictures of the time, where a common them of the fantasy links the post-menopausal woman with a young man, she sexually desiring him, even though she cannot give him children; there is a terror about failure in fertility, and this is one of the forces driving the persecution. There is a lot more about the social background in which this arose, a society at the subsistence level, with a corresponding mindset quite different from our own.

In case you are interested, there is a review still available at: [1]

--TonyinJersey 13:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm trying to work my way through some of these authors on the witch trial periods, to get a better idea of what Hutton was thinking, so I'll probably get around to Roper soon. Any other suggestions would be welcome too.
I wonder whether much of the disagreement over "pagan" elements in witchcraft comes down to definitions of "paganism"? Are the ecstatic revelries of the Perchtentag in Germany and Austria (still continuing to this very day) "pagan"? They are clearly of ancient origin (Lotte Motz, Carlo Ginzburg), but they have persisted within a Christian society, practised by Christians. Are they then pagan in origin, or are they simply "drawing on pre-Christian folklore"? Is this even a valid distinction to make? Fuzzypeg☻ 04:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paganism

Just a few notes:

1) Hutton revisits some areas in Witches, Druids and King Arthur (not to be confused with his latest book on druids) and points out that the paganism of the late Roman Empire / Dark Ages period had changed significantly, and was much closer to Wicca in some respects, I think one was the move to a symbolism in religious form and away from blood sacrifice.

2) I think the pagan/Christian distinction is extremely problematic. The Carmenina Gaedelica is clearly Christian in form, and includes a Beltane Blessing, and does not seem to distinguish clearly between prayers and charms. An example of a distinction we make, but does not seem to have been in evidence back then.

3) Just as Christmas continues as a rather secular celebration by many people, the continued existence of a festival does not mean that those participating would sign up to pagan beliefs.

[edit] ONE MORE (BRIEF) RESPONCE TO TonyinJersey @ 7 June 2007:

While it is true that Hutton may have kept up with current research, it is not accurate to say that he is basing his dismissal entirely off of these latter authors. According to a talk Janine had with Hutton, the single source he used to discredit Murray (in his mind) was Cohn. And as for the "original research on witch trial numbers", I cannot bring myself to term it as "original research" because Hutton simply doesn't explain what lead him to this number in his "Pagan Religions", as the figure's almost impossibly LOW! Nor, it should be acknowledged, did Hutton bother assigning any dates to this quantified number. So, I simply can't buy into that, I'm afraid.

One other facet I must admit that Hutton is blatantly guilty of is that he EDITS history, and blatantly misleads his readers as a result, I fear. For example, NO WHERE in his texts does he acknowledge the ground-breaking research from out of continental Europe (another schlastic concensus that defies his beloved British academia, which is only NOW finding support by more native English-speakers, such as the witchcraft trials bearing a shamanic antecedant; he thoughtlessly rejects it as even a plausibility, which is a shame). Anyway...by ignoring this VAST and formidible research he is giving a false impression to his readers that:

1.) No scholars believe differently than he. 2.) NO such research exists! 3.) Should the reader hear about such research they immediately dismiss it, cuynically, because "if there WAS anything to it Hutton WOULD HAVE mentioned it in his books!"

Such editing of academia is NOT the job of the Historian! Their job is to relate everything that is going on in the academic world FIRST; and then, and ONLY then, pass judgment IF it is warrented, and one'd betetr have a DAMN good reason for doing so other than semantics and unsubstantiated claims (his chapter on Samhain in "Stations" illustrated this last point very well, unfortunately).

So, with all of thes troubling instances, one must wonder WHY scholars have not censured Hutton for these books? Especially when he clearly mischaracterizes the works of other scholars, and portrays them in agreement with his extremism, which they are not; or, he has entirely mischaracterized the original research of another scholar, as he did with Carlo Ginzburg in the linked-to article from Folklore.

Sadly, Hutton's behaviour has had a resounding effect upon modern Pagans; they think that if HE can write an entirely one-sided polemic and ignore scholars and research that differs from what they THINK history was, than so can THEY (and, they sit on their laurels the whole time). Indeed, I am aware of DOZENS of historians that have portrayed the history of ancient paganism FAR diferently than he; but it seems important to Hutton that paganism died quickly, and without a complaint-- Why? The truth of the matter is paganism fought HARD for their religions AGAINST the Christians! Moreover, hius book is often full of whoppers: Why is Hutton so keen on believing in secret Christians (Mme. Blavatsky), but not secret Pagans; and why is it so important to him to write off Pan as a "Great God" (which is incorrect) and even writing off the cult of Isis as a Great-Goddess as being "atypical", when Her cult was anything BUT "typical", and he simply fails to define what WAS "typical" and spits in the face of the evidence we have in which She WAS a "Great-Goddess" [The Golden Ass]?

But, unfortunately, Hutton never offers forth what has brought him to these conclusions inspite of the evidence, while he also (more unfortunately) seems to hide behind his personally adopted methodology, rather than putting all his cards out on the table. If he did so, it would it would allow those reading his material to think for themselvs and to understand with a better ability where he was/is coming from! But, Hutton simply does not allow the reader to do so.

But, before I leave-off, one more point needs to be made. Often what I have seen in his books, often labled as "arguments" on his part, are not really "arguments" at all! Rather, he merely relies upon the alleged "consensus" of those scholars who he percieves as being in agreement with him. But, where are the scholars that DON'T agree with him, I would like to know? And WHY does asking that question immediately make other Pagans attack me as a "Fluff Bunny History Revisionist", damn it? LOL... Seriously: I've been called that! And, I find being called a "History Revisionist" HIGHLY offensive; most Pagans that use it as a term of abuse simply don't have an actual understanding of the nature of academia, etc.!

Also, it's worth noting-- in spades!-- that it's unusual how keen Hutton is about his allegations for their having been (so he claims) NO pagan survivalism by any stretch of the imagination! Yet...not once did he define what a potential survival might, or could, be! Now, this is a very important question, don't you think? After all, is it not reasonable to put forth the idea that if one is going to academically write something off, then they had better define it, so that others-- if they found evidence in agreement with their standards and definitions-- could bring forth said "evidence" and fashion a remarkible case to the contrary? Moreover, he writes off potential Pagan survivals, as have been pointed out by other scholars [eg. holy wells] as "not a religion" or "not religious". Well, here again, he failed to define what would constitute a "religion"! Would it not have behooved him to define what a "religion" is, and is not? Of course, in the former, animism would be a prime concern for the worship at holy wells, I believe. But, why, I must wonder, is it so important that he take these "definitions" for granted, rather than defining them? Is there some ulterior motive below the surface, here? Enquiring minds certainly would like to know!

207.177.31.20 17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)19:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)207.177.31.21Anonymous Pagan-Witch & Researcher!

Keith Ward, in his "Is religion dangerous?" actually starts by looking at defining religion, and points out that the term "religion" covers such a broad array of phenomena that it is almost impossible to identify a core of belief or practice common to everything we would identify as a religion. "Is Communism a religion? Or football? Or Scientology? How do we know what a religion is?" (p. 8). That may be why Hutton hesitates to provide a definition; it is next to impossible. Is it a religion to not walk under ladders, throw salt over your shoulder, touch wood for luck, kiss your hand if you see one magpie etc? That is probably why he rules out placed like Holy Wells in his discussion; they have often become places which people may visit, but not in the context of an organised belief system but instead as unattached locations that are part of handed down custom, like the Musgrave ritual in Conan Doyle. --TonyinJersey 13:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't doubt that defining what is, and is not, a religion is intimately frought with difficulty. That being said, Hutton cannot, thereby, write off evidence that can, or cannot, be religious just because of his "say so"-- I simply cannot buy into such specious reasoning at face value; I don't know many scholars that would be so flagrantly bold and so cavalear with academic protocol. What makes him think he has a right to express his views without bothering to explain his position. He's doing nothbing more other than forcing his readership to take him at his word (a tactic that has bread more than a few jaded researchers, myself included). Basically when I'm trying to get at, here, is that because he was unable to (for whatever reason) define what HE happens to mean by a "religion" or "religiousity", he had no right to write off potential evidence as not being "religious" or a "religion" simply with a flick of his wrist, having not first explained himself, his position, or at least why he is so skeptical in the first place. Moreover, knowing of his knowledge of folk-lore and folk-tradition, one might argue that he was perfectly capible of forming a definition about religion as differntiated from mindless folk-tradition; though this is not to rule ouut the religious nature of Holy Wells, and other sacred sites.
Though, if I may express another sadness about his lit. over the years: His failing to express the other groundbreaking work and research being performed, especially if it counters his own thoughts. He simply doesn';t acknowledge that such research even exists, which gives the reader a dearly mistaken impression. For example, while writing "Pagan Religions" NO WHERE did he acknowledge the scholastic consensus reached by the vast majority of scholars throughout continental Europe, who came to the conclusion that the antecedents for Medieval Witchcraft-belief was an endemic form of shamanism (however, of thsoe popular European scholars of this belief that he does cite, he mendaciously mischaracterizes their work, as if the authors cannot speak for themselves, and they aren't REALLY saying what they're saying; in fact, he actually puts words in their mouths, as he did with Prof. Carlo Ginzburg and his research). Another example is the scholastically ubiquitous Iron Age Celtic religious motiv of the Sovereignty-Goddess and rites of Kingship or inauguration (many Celticists-- specialists in the field-- have agreed on this and written articles about it). This theme even as strict IE parallels! But, what's almost worse, IMHO, is how Hutton actually ignored the concrete quantifications endowd by IE Studies-- he doesn't bring this into his texts as a possible answer to his questions, essentially treating it as inconsequential, or irrelivent. But, this is far from the case, which anyone with even a cursory knowledge of this discipline can attest. Hence, in this regard, Hutton may, unfortunately, be labled an "isolationist", it seems, as well as a Christian Apologist (striking for a Pagan, and moreso when comparative studies often yoield unequivoval results, and entedate Christianity). And, it is to this point that Hutton seems to be arguing that comparitive studies are 100% irrelivent, and blows up the importance of differentiation beyond all reasonable proportion, even when these differences may be open to alternative interpretation of a pagan nature. Of course, don;y get me started in his seeming refusal to cite modern scholars that come to differing conclusions to himself. So, to reject them is simply not kosher, academically.  ;o)

--207.177.31.20 17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)19:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)207.177.31.21Anonymous Pagan-Witch & Researcher!

[edit] Stations of the Sun 2001?

Why does the article list Stations of the Sun (with two others) as being published in 2001? Were these ISBNs for paperbacks or reprints? I have the hardback in front of me, and it's from 1996. (ISBN 0-19-820570-8). The dustjacket for it puts Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles as 1991 and Rise and Fall of Merrie England as 1994. Telsa 14:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link

I removed the review link by Max Dashu. She is not a historial, she is a professional artist. She only fancies herself as a historian so people will take her extremist revisionist feminism seriously. --Toadsboon 08:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

From her website:
Independent scholar Max Dashu founded the Suppressed Histories Archives in 1970. Since then, she has photographed over 14,000 slides and created ninety slideshows on international women's history, including Women's Power, Patriarchies, Female Rebels and Mavericks, Taming the Female Body, and Racism: History and Lies. She has presented hundreds of slide talks at universities, community centers, bookstores, schools, libraries, prisons, galleries, festivals and conferences around North America.
Dashu has guest-taught classes at John F. Kennedy University (Orinda, CA), California Institute of Integral Studies and New College (San Francisco), among others. She has acted as historical consultant for a variety of projects, including Donna Deitch's film, Woman to Woman (1973-4) and the San Francisco Women's Building mural project (1994).She has done extensive interdisciplinary research on the European witch hunts and folk traditions about witches.
Max Dashu is both an artist and a historian, and as far as I can make out, she's quite a decent one at that. I don't know where she was educated (someone else added that she is a Harvard scholar), but I've followed up some of her references and what she writes seems to be factually solid. I realise her review makes some pretty strong (and damning) conclusions, and that she stands out somewhat from other reviewers in this respect. However I have myself been working on a review of Hutton's Triumph of the Moon after I discovered a host of factual errors, misrepresentations and seeming biases in the book. I found Dashu's review while I was searching for anyone else who had found the errors I had. I included Dashu's review because so many people automatically treat everything he says as gospel, and in leu of my review this is a relatively good indication of the problems with his approach. I can't really submit my own review to wikipedia, and it's not finished yet. I still have quite a few more of Huttons references to read, having found him misrepresenting several of his sources already.
Anyway, my review aside, I have actually checked some of Dashu's assertions where I wasn't familiar with what she was saying, or where they sounded questionable. She checked out with flying colours. The fact that she's a feminist may influence some ignorant and opinionated critics to dismiss her work without actually checking it for factual accuracy. I note that Hutton in his response (on that Crooked Heath page) doesn't address even one of the factual errors she found. If she was full of rubbish, I'm sure he could have briefly given one or two examples and she would have been made to look like a fool.
I would like to restore her review here, especially since I don't want to be rushed with my own review - I want to make sure it's really sound before I publish it. We could also include Hutton's response, however I haven't managed to find it anywhere on the net other than on that rather awfully presented page (awfully presented opinion is endemic on that site; see what they say about Wiccans). Fuzzypeg 01:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
When/where can we see your corrections of Hutton's errors?
Septegram 17:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm working on it at the moment. Still not sure where it'll be published. Hopefully I can get it into a decent journal, or failing that, it'll appear on the internet somewhere. Unfortunately it's taking a while, because I'm having to track down and read a lot of his sources. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks like another editor has added the review back to the list. Fuzzypeg 03:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

An Assesment

Hey guys, I linked to what I have found to be a very important assessment of the scholarship of modern Paganism, written by a freelance historian. He brings up some very important questions the author feels that historians need to address, which they really have not. Now, my phrasing may need to be tweaked, but I have tyried to write it in as objective a tone as possible, while still informing a reader who scans the articles, what this respective link/site is about. 207.177.31.20 17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Anonymous Pagan-Witch & Researcher!

This is really interesting, and while I haven't read through it all in detail, it may contain valuable information for the Neopaganism or Wicca articles. It doesn't mention Hutton though, and is not a review of any of his works. It may indeed provide an interesting comparison to his theories, but we cannot ourselves suggest those comparisons (that would constitute original research); we must wait for a published author to make these comparisons. Therefore I'm removing the link. Fuzzypeg☻ 03:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, but it does mention Ronald Hutton and his working meathods, and specifically points out a great many problems within his TOTM, as well as flat-out incorrect information. Hey, I also know you are working on a review of this book (and I really wanna' read a copy of it, too, when its' ready!) you may want to contact Nigel Pennick. According to a British High Priestess whom I know well, Nigel had told her that Hutton simply made "dozens of mistakes and errors"! Now, what those mistakes and erors are I do not know (after all, different readers may find different mistakes). So, I thought you might like to contact him for a further avenue of investigation in your own writings.  ;o) (It's sad that Hutton, in his subsequent writings, has not fully come out as much as he should have re: many of the mistakes within his books. Indeed, so far as I am aware, his demarcation between "magic" and "religion" is an artificial one!)

199.120.81.45 04:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Anonymous Pagan-Witch Researcher

[edit] Dashu Artcile should be nixed

Narsil27 here. Please, for the love of all things NPOV, delete the Dashu article. It seems highly suspicious to me (an should to anyone else) that the only two active external links are to artciles critical of Ronald Hutton, and which both display a decidedly pro-Wiccan bent. No suprise, given the author of the article, but since when has Wikipedia become a dumping ground for neo-pagan archeological/anthropological pseduotheories casting ancient Europe as an anachronistic left-wing paradise? Reading reams of POV Wikipedia articles (most of them left-leaning)on ancient European religion is a small price to pay for the privilege of having Wikipedia online, but everyone really needs to excercise a bit of ideological self-control. Fuzzypeg - do the right thing. Leave the Dashu link, but deactivate it, and link to an article praising Hutton at the expense of your compatriots. Truth be told, Gimbutas, Adler, and their faction has been sliding down the ladder of serious academia at an exponential rate for a least a decade. That should be made clearer in this article by the inclusion of more balanced external links. Narsil27 19:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Odd that you should imply that Wiccans would be critical of Hutton. I'm Wiccan, and have been very impressed by his work (although I'll be interested to see good criticism of it). Gimbutas' scholarship is not well-regarded in anthropological circles, and I have no problem with that; scholarship should stand on its merits. If by Adler you mean Margot Adler, I'm curious as to what of her work has been "sliding down the ladder of academia?" Surely you don't mean "Drawing Down the Moon?"
If you want more balanced links in the article, by the way, I'd say "Be Bold." Find them and add them.
Septegram 19:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I don't disagree with Septegram regarding finding some more articles praising (or at least putting a balanced spin on) Hutton's work. That I shall endeavor to do. What I did find laughably predictable about the article was the pattern of "active linking" (i.e., the only active links were to pro-Wiccan/anti-Hutton articles, and the author happened to be Wiccan). I just expected a little more detachment from my fellow Wikipedians.Narsil27 20:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Narsil27. The first thing to point out is that, while Wikipedia articles themselves strive to remain neutral, they can, and should reference authors who have their own point of view. In fact it's dangerous to treat any author (including Hutton, for instance) as unbiased; that's why we clearly reference who ideas come from in these articles, and attempt to provide multiple contrasting views. If Dashu were mentioned in the article body, we might say "Max Dashu is of the opinion that ..." for instance.
Regarding the fact that Gibbons and Dashu are online, while the others aren't, I don't see a good solution for that other than to find online reviews that you think are worthy and link them in here, or else quote sections of the reviews you appreciate in the body of the article. I don't think unlinking a review is a good option. We're trying to make information more accessible, not less.
Regarding Dashu's view on Wicca, I haven't ever read anything by her on the subject, and I wouldn't presume to guess.
Regarding "pseduotheories casting ancient Europe as an anachronistic left-wing paradise": have you actually read any of Gibbons' or Dashu's writing? Neither of them have suggested anything like this. In fact the scenario you're trying to put into their mouths is the "straw doll" that Dashu very explicitly disowns, in her article Knocking down Straw Dolls: A critique of Cynthia Eller's The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future. What she actually discusses is much closer to the realms of respectable archaeology than you might think. I suggest you read a little bit of her critique of Hutton and see what it's based on. Her arguments are on simple factual grounds, and they hold weight. I've followed up several of her claims and found them to be accurate.
Hutton, on the other hand, I have found to be often quite inaccurate, particularly in making vast over-generalisations which make him sound like he has an exhaustive knowledge of a particular area, but which are (presumably) based on a poor knowledge, since they simply aren't true. While I could write a long essay on this (and I am), a couple of concrete examples will have to suffice for the moment.
  1. Hutton paints Leland as a crank and a forger, claiming that Aradia (Herodias) is clearly a figure from Christian not pagan theology and that no other Italian folklorist has found evidence for the Vangel. At this critical point in assassinating Leland's character, he neglects to mention that the eminent Italian historian Carlo Ginzburg famously identified the Benandanti, a cult with more than passing resemblance to the beliefs Leland recorded. Ginzburg also clearly demonstrated the non-Christian origin of the name Herodias ("Hera-Diana", which was normalised by the Church to "Herodias"). Despite Hutton purporting to critique Ginzburg's work elsewhere in TotM, he is either unaware of the main contents of Ginzburg's work, or he purposely ignores it. Other, more detailed scholarly analyses of Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches since have arrived at much more balanced conclusions (see the article). (Note that I'm not claiming there is a link between the Benandanti and Leland's strega, just that Hutton has misrepresented the facts.)
  2. One of Hutton's most pivotal claims in TotM is that modern pagan witchcraft cannot be historically-based, because there was no witchcraft, or even any form of pagan religion on which witchcraft could be based, still existing by the early modern era. Apparently not a single person persecuted was a practitioner of a pagan religion. His main support of this is simply citing seven of his creme-de-la-creme of modern scholars, with very little supporting discussion. Some of these are in foreign language, but of those in English, at least two directly contradict Hutton, freely talking about the influences of old pagan religious practices. A particularly juicy chapter is in the cited book by Monter (I think it was Monter, not Midelfort, I don't have any of this in front of me), about white witchcraft, which evaluates the beliefs of witches in France and England, and describes how the "green devils" in the woods were probably old pagan gods and the saints' shrines to which ill people were sent were probably actually dedicated to old pagan gods with a Christian veneer. Of the other books he cites (that are in a language I can read) none make the claim that Hutton does. They demonstrate that most accused "witches" were normal Christians, but they certainly don't go as far as saying "not a single person accused...". A moderate familiarity with the current academic work on the witch-trial period actually reveals Hutton's position as extreme and atypical. (Note that this is not support for a widespread organised witch-cult in Europe, such as Margaret Murray proposed, just another instance of extreme oversimplification and misrepresentation of other authors.)
These are two examples of extreme over-generalisation and oversimplification, a lack of balance, a bias or a POV if you will. I can't comment on Hutton's motives, but I've found similar fallacies and misrepresentations scattered through his work. Dashu, despite being labelled as a "feminist", has so far seemed remarkably balanced, and is, as far as I have been able to ascertain, solidly grounded in fact.
I'm more interested in truth than in any invented history. And to find the truth I think we have to put labels and preconceptions aside, and evaluate these works on their factual accuracy. Fuzzypeg☻ 06:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harvard Educated

It doesn't matter where this Dashu was educated and certainly should not be included in a reference.

Yeah. I agree. This was substantially a revert to a version just before the reference had been deleted. The "harvard" bit wasn't mine, but it didn't really concern me one way or the other. Fuzzypeg 22:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Homosexuality in Paganism?

83.204.23.239, can you be more specific with the rumors about Prof. Hutton's fictitious work on Homosexuality in Paganism? I removed the earlier (incorrect) information about his future work, and you've put an ammended version back in about 24 hours. Not that I wouldn't buy such a book by Prof. Hutton if it existed, but where are these rumors coming from? Wouldn't it be more useful to e-mail Prof. Hutton and ask him what his next project *is*, instead of listing what he *isn't* working on? John Burridge 22:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, that would fall afoul of our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. I think that I'll take out any references to what Hutton isn't working on that are in the article, until we get some explanation of what this might be about. Jkelly 22:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops. Right. Mea Culpa. John Burridge 22:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

His next project due out possibly next year (hopefully) is an academic footnoted and more detailed study on the Druids: A History (2007); source, personal email from RH, but also mentioned in introduction to Druids but without timetable.

--TonyinJersey 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revisionist?

Tony_theprof has reinserted a reference to Hutton's work re: druidry, calling it "sympathetic but revisionist."

I had deleted this as unsourced. Tony reinserted it with a link to the lecture in question. My question was not that the lecture did not exist, but with it being described as "revisionist." While that is a technical term, it (like, for example, "cult") is subject to a certain amount of opprobrium, and calling Hutton's work "revisionist" could indicate that this lecture is of questionable veracity or heavily slanted to a particular POV.

In order to avoid any edit warring, I'd like to open a discussion of possible other ways to phrase this.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 13:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy with any brief more neutral word that sums up what Hutton does in his lecture and book. Basically, he takes the previously given history/histories? of the origins of modern druidry (which base them on an unbroken line), and checks them against sources and in doing so produces a revised history of how modern druidry came to be and why it was so important to its founders (and also today). The fact that Hutton is giving the talk to Druids, and is a member of various Druid orders indicates that he is sympathetic to them; it is not a Dawkin's kind of cheap debunking exercise, but an honest appraisal as to the reason why the early modern druids came to be. There is an very good interview at http://druidnetwork.org/profiles/people/ronald_hutton.html which explains much of this. I'll try and rework the sentence to use "revised" rather than "revisionist".
--TonyinJersey 14:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Tony. It's that kind of collaborationist attitude that (usually) makes Wikipedia a good place to "work." Don't get me started on some of the pissing matches in which I've been involved. Grrr.
You restore my faith in The System.
Regards,
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)