Critiquing Ronald Hutton [Archive] - MysticWicks Online Pagan Community and Spiritual Sanctuary

Paracelsus

April 30th, 2005, 12:15 PM

Well, it looks like others beat me to the riposte -
But yes, I agree with the points made, Hutton is an excellent academic historian, (you don't get to be Professor of Historical Studies at Bristol by an over-reliance upon intuition, after all) and writes from that perspective. Pagans are more than entitled to value intuition, and to accept "mythical" history, but don't expect academic historians to work within those limitations. There are plenty within the Pagan community, including myself, who are more than capable of reconciling such a view of the history of the craft with it's practice (a group that would include Ronald himself, I think you'll find). You have every right to be aggrieved that his particular historical discourse does not fit your intuitions, but that is a different issue to taking him on as a sceptic: scepticism is a pretty healthy thing after all - it enables us to cope with bullshit (as much of what Murray and Gardner claimed, patently is, in a non-mythological context - theologically I'll agree with you that there are kernels of truth, but this is a different order of truth). Your point about Masonic history is contentious, in that there as many discourses of this as there are masonic orders - academic work on this tends to favour Ronald's interpretation.
The equivalence of folklore, as I'm sure you're aware, as of equal value to academic historial research is not something that the academy and many pagans, are going to accept - folklore studies after all have long ago accepted that there are different kinds of truth - Hutton's truths and yours are obviously of different kinds.
Finally, I would contend that you are misrepresenting what he is trying to do - he is no hammer swinging iconoclast, but someone who has set out to find out the historical truth of a vital, and important manifestation of contemporary spirituality. Reacting to him as the former is missing the point.

TYRRHENUS

April 30th, 2005, 06:57 PM

Hello Carla. Welcome to the site. I don't mean to be jump on the band wagon here, but there are a few things I feel strong about. First, I would like to know where in Triumph of the Moon does Hutton try to dismiss Carlo Ginzburg? I'm looking and I can't find it. Hutton makes two points regarding I Benandanti: 1) That many Neo-Pagan authors have misquoted Ginzburg. Which is true. 2) Hutton points out that 'some might say' Ginzburg did not prove one particular claim made in the introduction to first edition of I Benandanti - that the similarities between the benandanti legends of Friuli and the werewolf legends of Livonia must mean that at one time such folklore was present throughout Europe. As for the second point, later editions have added in a caveat, and this was Ginzburg's first book so one mistake is pretty good. Hutton was not harking on the point. He only showed the effect this one line had on many Neo-Pagan authors who have been inspired by Ginzburg.
If Hutton wanted to dismiss Ginzburg he could have stated that Ginzburg himself offered an explanation of why there was a similarity between the Friulian and Livonian legends... in the last chapter a fellow had dillusions of being a benandanti and was sentenced to 20 years in a galley. The sentence was later commuted, but it makes you wonder how many men were sentenced to such a fate and to where they may have taken their folklore, Livonia for instance.
For those not familiar with Ginzburg's I Benandanti/The Night Battles, there were these men in the Friuli region of northern Italy who, born with the caul, were told that they were special. They were told that when they were older they would have these dreams of leaving their bodies and go off to a field to fight "malandanti'" for the well-being of the harvest.He only allows literary evidence to stand.Hutton does take the literary approach to his investigation, who was inspired by whom and so on. So Hutton couldn't possibly be critiqued for using a well-established method of historical research.He thinks Europeans had no sense of nature prior to the 1800's.Hutton makes it quite clear, several times, that 1800 is the date at which he began his study. I don't see Triumph of the Moon having anything specifically to do with Europeans having a sense of nature, but rather, the curious after-effects of the Romantic Era during which there certainly was an infatuation with pastoral imagery and nature.He dismisses rituals which are clearly thin Christian veneers over pagan rituals as only Christian.This one bothers me the most. The closest thing I can think of is how Hutton mentioned the Anglican (read Protestant) Church would have been more concerned with the people using Catholic Saint's amulets than the possibility of any pagan survivals. Anyway, this thin veneer phrase is getting on my nerves. What must Catholics do not to be labeled pagans in disguise? What ancient traditions must they throw away so that their beliefs will not be insulted? That's what I think.

Ben Gruagach

April 30th, 2005, 07:20 PM

By the way, there is an interesting interview with Ronald Hutton at http://www.druidnetwork.org/profiles/ronald_hutton.htm

It's also worth noting that Hutton has a book out, "Witches, Druids, and King Arthur" (published in 2003) that follows up on some of the material he presented in "Triumph of the Moon" including some changes to a few of the statements he made in the previous book.

The whole point of scholarly work is to attempt to discover the truth no matter how uncomfortable that truth might be to some people. Good scholarly debate involves proving or disproving claims -- it is not about making specific people look good or bad. Honorable scholars will readily change their minds on things when they are presented with real proof to convince them.

Carla O'Harris

May 1st, 2005, 06:25 AM

But why not? He's an academic. He's using academic methods in his analysis of the subject. It was never intended to be a "spiritual" analysis. Spiritual truth is one thing, what Hutton did was look at the historical side of things. Where is the harm in analysing the material?

There are academic ways of analysing material that is not just literary-elite. Taking into account folklore, and assuming continuity of culture unless there is direct evidence against it.

Actually, his academic work is far inferior to social historians who really know how to probe material for what's underneath.

ancestral_lee

May 1st, 2005, 06:39 AM

Carla O'Harris

May 1st, 2005, 06:59 AM

I'm charging that it's corrosive skepticism, that has bad faith with the materials. That's a pretty serious charge, and I'll let it stand. It's what I consider a sloppy kind of scholarship that has an agenda but pretends to be neutral.

He does try to dismiss Carlo Ginzburg, tries to ridicule him, turns his words against him and implies he can't possibly be saying what he's saying.

Secondly, the Benandanti did not just "dream" they went out on these night-missions. It's clear they had an ecstatic visioning experience, and also that many claimed they didn't just go in the spirit but in the flesh. There's been an academic bias ever since Norman Cohn to consider these experiences "hallucinations". We flatter them now by calling them "trances", which have now just turned into "dreams". However, the evidence is scattered with testimony of people who claimed to do this in the body as well as the spirit.

Ginzburg is very clear : this is a SECT of people. They correlate well with the Calusari, who were definitely a sect, who are also connected with fairy beliefs, and who had ecstatic dance meetings. Eva Pocs shows that there was a genuine folk-sabbat far predating the diabolic sabbat.

But Hutton doesn't cover any of this. He doesn't give any of this credence, giving the false appearance that the academic material he presents is the whole story. That's intellectual dishonesty.

So there WERE fertility cults connected with ecstatic visioning. Behringer adds that these were correlated with the fairies, the wild hunt, and healing cunning-folk.

Hutton doesn't mention any of this important, recent work.

He doesn't acknowledge that a witch-cult easily can migrate with families from place to place, so even if you have difficulty tracing it to one place in one time, it can easily move around, especially according to persecutions. We know this is true for other sects, so why not for witchcraft?

It's difficult to actually take a neutral stance in this regard. You either accept Establishment-history, where only what the establishment has laid out becomes the hypothesis to be tested, or you accept Underground-history, which acknowledges that history has undercurrents that only surface from time to time and thus can only be traced through those surfacings, which becomes the hypothesis to be investigated. Hutton begins with the first assumption, and requires damning amounts of evidence for what cannot possibly be asked for. To demand impossible evidence of something kept secret and underground amounts to suppression of the evidence that is there. Christianity has a long history of suppressing and attempting to eradicate both paganism and heresies. By the time witchcraft appeared in the records as a "sect", it was a blend of both folk-paganism and heresy. Even Gardner couldn't believe at first that there could have been survivals since the 1600's. Murray only argues her thesis up to about that time. Given the activity going on in the 1500's that Behringer and Ginzburg document, as well as the activity going on in Scotland and in Hungary as documented by Pocs into the 1700's, it's very arguable there was a heretical sect drawing upon pagan and Catharist themes, and thus easy to lampoon as satanic (given that the Cathars felt their god was the true god and the official Church god was satan). Hutton draws upon studies of English cunning-folk to argue against pagan survival. Well, in England, there may have been more of a literary influence, but the evidence elsewhere indicates a constant connection between the fairies and the cunning-folk, and after all, all Owens really shows is that cunning-folk in England were using grimoires : so what? What's the difference functionally between talking to the fairies in Ireland, or conjuring up a spirit in England? They functionally fit the same pattern. Hutton spends almost no time talking about fairies, and there's good reason : because if he did, there's ample evidence to blow his theories right out of the water. The fairy-faith in Europe is one of the best-documented pagan religions with a continuity into the earliest of times, and it is undeniable that in Ireland the gods, the Tuatha De Danaan, become the fairies, and so, contrary to Hutton's assertions, there absolutely IS a continuity of pagan worship over the centuries. Obviously some of these fairies got mixed up with barely Christian saints, which Pamela Berger demonstrates well.

In fact, Hutton would be good to read Berger, because she demonstrates, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that actual PAGAN CULTIC PRACTICES, some of them stretching back to the TIME OF TACITUS, survived under thin Christian and sometimes agrarian folk-figure covers well into our times, some even into the 20th century.

Hutton doesn't consider that cunning-folk can be great syncretizers and at the same time performing pagan functions, especially when they are called upon to intervene with the fairies/spirits.

Hutton continually derides people who are not part of academia in his book. People without degrees or tenured status receive dry, subtle, but tangible scorn on his part, and he is skilled at Ad Hominem arguments and devaluations.

Hutton seems to imply that "pastoralism" only appeared because of nostalgia caused by the Industrial Revolution. Bullshit! Pastoralism has a long history, and people began ARTICULATING their connection to nature -- which needed little articulation before that point -- precisely because it was being violated. Someone intelligent might use pastoralism as a means of penetrating to agrarian folklore through an elitist and sometimes condescending lens.

There's so much about "Triumph of the Moon" that one could criticize it's difficutl to know where to begin.

But the fact that it has become such an Idol amongst pagans themselves is another important reason to challenge it, and in fact, few challenges have been forthcoming. I intend to rally such a challenge.

ancestral_lee

May 1st, 2005, 07:05 AM

few challenges have been forthcoming. I intend to rally such a challenge

as long as you can provide factual evidence rather than tenuous folkor to back up your claims then you will be fine.

try emailing him some of your evidence - he's a nice chap - you might get his views.

Seren_

May 1st, 2005, 07:10 AM

There are academic ways of analysing material that is not just literary-elite. Taking into account folklore, and assuming continuity of culture unless there is direct evidence against it.

Actually, his academic work is far inferior to social historians who really know how to probe material for what's underneath.

So what you're really saying is that Hutton's research style is not to your tastes. Does that invalidate his work totally?

Carla O'Harris

May 1st, 2005, 07:11 AM

here in the UK, Hutton is very well respected - BECAUSE he doesnt take and bullshit. he works with facts and truth. hearsay and rumour is pointless - yes there may be a grain f truth in it somewhere, but the probkem is that nobody can know for certain where.

hutton presents a solid (solid because it ignores rumour and folklore) on which to start, after that you can add what you like, but dont try to present it as some sort of authorative truth because it isnt.

oh and you do know Hutton is pagan right?

"Facts and truth". Wow, now he's working with "facts and truth". Well, how you analyse that "fact and truth" is very important, because there may be much that is implicit in there that can be drawn out that a disbelieving, closed mind will refuse to see.

Folklore is NOT "hearsay". It may have been collected by people in the elite, but at least they were trying to listen to the oral tradition, rather than modern historians who only consider the literary tradition written by elites to be valid.

Hutton gets his facts wrong. He dismisses mumming as a recent invention of the 1700's, as many modern folklorists assert, when in fact it can be traced to much earlier : at least the 1400's, possibly the 1200's. But of course he doesn't quote the scholars who assert the earlier dates. He only quotes those scholars who tend to prove his agenda, and when he quotes others, he twists what they have to say, calls them into question, and generally invalidates them. Here he is assisted by a new modern skeptical school of folklore that in its skepticism throws the baby out with the bathwater ; tired of the excesses of an earlier school deriving all folklore from ancient times, the new school tries to see all folklore as being relatively recent.

If you're going to be a real scholar, you must also be aware of scholarly trends and study how scholarship works. Scholarship works on a pendulum system with new paradigms moving in and out across generations, and to only rely on recent, modern scholarship as if it were the only way or most updated way is myopic. In many fields, for example, 19th century scholars are far ahead of their present contemporaries.

Another modern trend in scholarship, perhaps spearheaded by Foucault and the postmodernists, is the trend against intercultural comparison, which has led the present school to ridiculously dismiss much of Frazer's book, which will no doubt when the pendulum swings, experience a renaissance that it is fully worthy of. Granted that Frazer's definitions of magic and religion are outdated, but many of his theories are soundly and logically argued, and the folklore he presents is important and in fact often tends to corroborate his views. But due to cultural sensitivity and identity politics, we're not supposed to compare different cultures. I understand the need for particularity and nuance, but the pendulum will indeed swing back to seeing things in a comparative context again, which will tend to give context to much European folklore.

I admire the desire to create a scholarship of Wicca, and in "Triumph", Hutton has succeeded in many ways in providing a context, but in only looking above ground, he misses much that is very important.

Carla O'Harris

May 1st, 2005, 07:18 AM

I am happy to provide "factual evidence". But I will be using a different theoretical model to link this factual evidence together. I will be using an "Underground" model. So, if we find a "surfacing" of "factual evidence" in one century, and then another "surfacing" two centuries later, we will not assume these as isolated facts, nor will we be required to demonstrate proof of continuity. We will begin with the assumption that much that is taken for granted about a culture does need articulation until there is some sort of crisis.

We'll begin with basic texts like Ginzburg's "Ecstasies", which establishes an agrarian-shamanism with differentiate variants across Europe ; Eva Pocs' "Between the Living and the Dead", which demonstrates ecstatic fairy-beliefs in Hungary and beyond ; and the ever-fit Duerr's "Dreamtime : Concerning the Boundary Between Wilderness and Civilization".

We will begin with the hypothesis that there was a phenomenon here worthy of investigation, just like Sherlock Holmes begins with the hypothesis that a crime took place and then uses the assembled clues to construct a viable reconstruction of the crime that took place. This calls for an imaginative scholarship that is capable of envisioning how facts connect.

Carla O'Harris

May 1st, 2005, 07:21 AM

So what you're really saying is that Hutton's research style is not to your tastes. Does that invalidate his work totally?

No, it doesn't invalidate his work totally.

Obviously, his work is important for several reasons. And if I have anything to say about it, one of the most important will be that it awakened pagans from a scholarly haze in order to be able to muster one of the biggest rebuttals in pagan scholastic history. But as I've said, he also provides a context in many ways for much of what happened. What needs to be done is for this material to be rewritten in a friendlier way.

ancestral_lee

May 1st, 2005, 07:25 AM

We will begin with the assumption

isnt that the problem though - you are basing this on an asumption, the foundations are not solid and so many academics would not take it sriously.

Carla O'Harris

May 1st, 2005, 08:08 AM

ALL ACADEMIC DISCUSSION BEGINS WITH ASSUMPTIONS. There is not a SINGLE DISCOURSE on the planet that does not. I'm merely being honest about the assumptions I'm laying down.

Paracelsus

May 1st, 2005, 08:43 AM

Indeed you are...
But therein lies the problem, although I am perfectly happy to accept that there are numerous discourses of history, and that Ronald's work is pretty neatly encompassed by your description of it as elite, by saying, "Oh here's my reading of history which invalidates Hutton", you are descending to the same kind of level - if you are going to talk about Discourses, and that, in itself, is perfectly acceptable, you must remember Foucault (who invented the pomo use of the term) - competing discourses must be understood as of equal value - "You are right" , for you, and "Hutton is right" for Hutton. Your critiques of Hutton seem to be based upon the point that he is working within another discourse of History to your own (which I'm sure can't be as exciting, as it's not "underground"), and that this discourse is not one that you want to accept. That's fine, that makes him wrong, for you, but not in an objective sense. I mean, you are hoist with your own petard when you are talking about the scholars of mummery - you say that Ronald doesn't agree with most of your points, yet in the same paragraph accept that he is in line with most other scholars in the field. I know that Hutton is more than capable of rattling academic cages, so I suspect that, if he is following a majority view, this is not because he's running with the crowd, but because he agrees with it.
As for your suggestion that there are definite Pagan survivals - that's fine, but back it up, at the moment you are putting forward an unsupported argument - and yeah, I've read Pocs and Ginsburg too, but I don't see anything there that suggests historical continuity. More to the point, I am familiar with people who claim to belong to "Traditional Craft" covens, and would point out to you that you will have a terrible catch 22 if you want to authenticate your intuitions -
a) If trad crafters do represent pagan survival, then they are serious about secrecy, so either you'll never know, or if you do, you'll never be able to tell anyone.
b) If trad crafters are following non-Gardnerian ideas of modern invention, many of them will believe the mythologies that they are given (indeed, are more likelty to adhere strictly to them than gardnerians, as it will give them a greater feeling of authenticity).
c) A lot of those who make the most noise about being trad-craft are obviously frauds, who enjoy the feeling of if you'll pardon the analogy being able to say "I was a punk before you were a punk" to others in the broader pagan community.
Finally - Frazer & the Godlen Bough, yes, great for it's time, but I think you'll go further with phenomenological approaches to religious studies - ideas develop for a reason, after all. If you think that this is insoluble, then read Wallis' "Shamans & Neo-Shamans" - he manages to use his own subjective experience of northern shamanism as a way of suggesting that what shamans do now, and what shamans did then fulfill similar spiritual / sociological needs, using similar imagery, but one is not a lineal descendent of the other.

This whole quest for authenticity that you want to go on - it's a sticky wicket, and intuition is a poor guide. Let's take Padstow Mayday (as I'm off there tomorrow) - feels as Pagan as anything, but we know that from an "elite historical persepctive" it isn't. I'm a Pagan, I like it, it makes me feel alive, and participating in something ancient, and connected to the land, and therefore enhances my spirituality, but at the same time, I know that it isn't objectively ancient. SO what's the problem?

Paracelsus

May 1st, 2005, 08:45 AM

Oh, and as parting shot - re:"ad hominem arguments" - that's the pot calling the kettle black if ever I saw one. But more to the point, bring out your evidence, for such is not his style, either in writing or in person...

Carla O'Harris

May 1st, 2005, 09:10 AM

For example, he tries to psychologize Robert Graves to insinuate that his theories are merely a working-through of his own life-issues. Elsewhere he suggests that certain people are merely bitter that academia dismissed them. The whole book is a running stream of ad hominem insinuations.

Carla O'Harris

May 1st, 2005, 09:12 AM

Carla O'Harris

May 1st, 2005, 09:45 AM

I want to add that :

a) I think Hutton's work is important,

b) I am rebutting his work, not making a personal attack on who he is. I don't know who he is, and when I speak of "him", I'm referring to his authorial voice in his books. In fact, he seems like a quite genial chap, but that does not mean I agree with what he says in his books.

I would hope this would be taken for granted but I want it to be said.

Seren_

May 1st, 2005, 10:47 AM

"Let's take Padstow Mayday"

If we're referring to hobby-horses, hobby-horses ARE ancient. The particular configuration at this event may be a creative variant, based on a more recent synthesis, but hobby-horses as such are ancient.

Without any proof - preferably from primary sources - to back this up, what you are saying is nothing more than your opinion.

raven grimassi

May 1st, 2005, 12:12 PM

A lot of those who make the most noise about being trad-craft are obviously frauds, who enjoy the feeling of if you'll pardon the analogy being able to say "I was a punk before you were a punk" to others in the broader pagan community.

During my travels as an author, I have attended many Pagan festivals and have talked with many Witches across the U.S. and have corresponded with many in Europe and Australia. Some of these people claimed to be Witches from a long family line, others claimed to have been taught by hereditary Witches of the "old blood" lines. Of the Witches I spoke with, there were those I readily believed, and some I regarded with varying degrees of reservation.

In the final analysis, there were some constants I discovered in all of the Witches that I believed came from old traditions pre-dating the 19th century. My belief in these individuals was based upon several things in general. One of the most important factors to me was that they did not truly care if anyone believed their claims, and were very light-hearted about the entire matter of disbelief. There was no air of superiority, but simply the view that this is their lineage (much like the view that ones family has been shoemakers for six generations). None of them felt that being a hereditary Witch made them better (or worse) than anyone else.

The second factor was that they all independently agreed upon what was new Witchcraft and what was old Witchcraft. Other than the obvious presence of cultural expression and bias, at the core of what they reported was a glaring commonality. The commonality of their beliefs and practices was compelling to me.

I offer this in the spirit of the old admonishment that we not toss the baby out with the bath water. ;)

Best regards - Raven

TYRRHENUS

May 1st, 2005, 03:03 PM

Secondly, the Benandanti did not just "dream" they went out on these night-missions.So they said. They also admitted to going there on the backs of hares, lions, etc.Ginzburg is very clear : this is a SECT of people.Really? What pages does he say that? * waiting anxiously *

Carla O'Harris

May 1st, 2005, 07:39 PM

So they said. They also admitted to going there on the backs of hares, lions, etc.Really? What pages does he say that? * waiting anxiously *

quotes from Ginzburg, The Night Battles, translated by John and Anne Tedeschi, Penguin Books, 1986 reprint.

"In this period the benandanti constituted, as we perceive from their confessions, a true and proper sect, organized in military fashion about a leader and linked by a bond of secrecy..." (p. 15)

"We have been talking of the benandanti as a sect : a very special sect, whose ceremonies, in the words of the benandanti themselves, had an almost dream-like character. But actually, the benandanti were saying something different ; they never doubted the reality of those gatherings which they attended 'in spirit'." (p. 16)

"In addition to 'sect' and 'society', the inquisitors and the benandanti themselves spoke of 'art' and 'profession'." (p. 179)

"Not all witches asserted that they went to the sabbat 'in spirit'. A woman of Gaiato, Orsolina, nicknamed 'la Rossa', tried by the Modenese Inquisition in 1539, was asked by the judge whether she always made her way to the sabbat 'physically or in sleep'. She replied that 'there are many who go in spirit only, but some also in their bodies' ; as for herself, 'she always went there physically'." (p.20)

Carla O'Harris

May 1st, 2005, 07:43 PM

Without any proof - preferably from primary sources - to back this up, what you are saying is nothing more than your opinion.

I'll quote here from a fairly conservative source that is more in line with the modern skeptical school. The early date this source is willing to give most probably means the custom dates from even earlier. J. Simpson and S. Roud's Oxford Dictionary of English Folklore, under the entry "hobbyhorses" dates hobbyhorses back to the 1300's and 1400's.

To give some context, most of what we know about Scandinavian paganism emerges in the late 1200's and early 1300's, and almost no one suggests that this was invented on the spot, but rather that it reflects traditions that were centuries if not millenia old by that time.

TYRRHENUS

May 2nd, 2005, 12:27 AM

THANK YOU Carla! :)
There is so much in Ginzburg. I just finished The Cheese and the Worms a few weeks ago.

Ben Trismegistus

May 2nd, 2005, 09:45 AM

Penthesilea

May 2nd, 2005, 10:27 AM

Two things:

Second, there have been several threads on this forum decrying Hutton, and again, I fail to see how it could possibly be a bad thing to formulate a history of modern neo-paganism based solely on verifiable sources. Folklore is simply not verifiable. There is no shortage of information about the folkloric history of modern neo-paganism, so I applaud Hutton's efforts to present a pared-down history with as much verifiable fact as possible. I most certainly do not see it as an attempt at corrosion -- exposing the falsehoods in our history does not in any way effect the validity of the practice or theology. In the vernacular of my childhood, "Amen!"

raven grimassi

May 2nd, 2005, 10:47 AM

There is no shortage of information about the folkloric history of modern neo-paganism, so I applaud Hutton's efforts to present a pared-down history with as much verifiable fact as possible. I most certainly do not see it as an attempt at corrosion -- exposing the falsehoods in our history does not in any way effect the validity of the practice or theology.

I would like to suggest something. I think the use of the term "falsehoods" lies at the core of the problem for many people. They don't see their views as falsehoods, they see them as interpretations, theories, or personal convictions. In addition not everyone sees Gardner as the "be all" and "end all" of the Craft, nor does everyone see England as the birth source of the Craft. I believe that this is, in part, a contributing factor to the objections that some people have with scholars like Hutton, and with others.

Personally, I think that Hutton presented a theory that is not unreasonable concerning the evolution of the Gardnerian Craft (and its offshoots) and he provided some insights into certain constructions and additions that seem to be compelling evidence. But much of what he wrote is speculation, theory, interpretation, and personal belief. It is the same situation on both sides of the issue, and as is often the case, I imagine that THE truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Perhaps if we listened more to what each other says, with an ear towards also understanding what each other means, then perhaps someday we might find a middle ground for true communication. Hey, everyone needs a dream...

Best regards - Raven

Carla O'Harris

May 2nd, 2005, 05:48 PM

Two things:

First off, I'd like to point out that Hutton actually gets the history of the Freemasons spot on. It is the majority of Freemasons who have it wrong. For the most accurate description, I recommend The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's Century, 1590-1710 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521396549/qid=1115041170/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-9435030-9295947?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by David Stevenson. It points out, rightly so, that the only connection between the Masons and the Templars (or anything before them) is purely mythological.

Second, there have been several threads on this forum decrying Hutton, and again, I fail to see how it could possibly be a bad thing to formulate a history of modern neo-paganism based solely on verifiable sources. Folklore is simply not verifiable. There is no shortage of information about the folkloric history of modern neo-paganism, so I applaud Hutton's efforts to present a pared-down history with as much verifiable fact as possible. I most certainly do not see it as an attempt at corrosion -- exposing the falsehoods in our history does not in any way effect the validity of the practice or theology.

Well, you may *like* Hutton's interpretation, but that does not make it objectively correct. It certainly is one interpretation amongst many.

However, Dr. Bob James has specialized in this research, and his area of study is labour history, a study of working class benefit organizations, and medieval guilds, and he feels Hutton is off track. James is available online so you can check out his work. According to Dr. James, there was an entire allegorical, working class "masonic"-style culture of rituals and initiations, of which Freemasonry was one particular offshoot. This is a very important point. You don't have to agree with it, but you have to acknowledge that it is a viable, well-researched, well-argued, and respectable position, and that therefore arguments may be built upon it as a basis. You don't have to agree with them, but the research is sound enough to warrant its use as a solid foundation for the task of building arguments.

And what do you mean, "folklore is not verifiable"? One sees similar themes popping up again and again in history. The choice to exclude folklore is a choice, and frankly, I think a choice based upon an agenda, because the facts look different with that choice. It is a choice to exclude a whole field of data that are significant and were meaningful for our ancestors, who were for the most part ordinary working men and women, whether they were urban guild workers or rural farm workers, and not elite scholastics only concerned with what was "verifiable" in someone's rigidly anal sense.

Ben Trismegistus

May 3rd, 2005, 09:31 AM

However, Dr. Bob James has specialized in this research, and his area of study is labour history, a study of working class benefit organizations, and medieval guilds, and he feels Hutton is off track. James is available online so you can check out his work. According to Dr. James, there was an entire allegorical, working class "masonic"-style culture of rituals and initiations, of which Freemasonry was one particular offshoot. This is a very important point. You don't have to agree with it, but you have to acknowledge that it is a viable, well-researched, well-argued, and respectable position, and that therefore arguments may be built upon it as a basis. You don't have to agree with them, but the research is sound enough to warrant its use as a solid foundation for the task of building arguments.
Thanks for the heads up. I'll check out Dr. James' work. Specifically, I was referring to the theories of people like Knight & Lomax (the authors of The Hiram Key), who are NOT historians, and instead use empirical facts to jump to the most outlandish conclusions, linking Masonic history to everything from the Hittites to Jesus.

And what do you mean, "folklore is not verifiable"? One sees similar themes popping up again and again in history. The choice to exclude folklore is a choice, and frankly, I think a choice based upon an agenda, because the facts look different with that choice. It is a choice to exclude a whole field of data that are significant and were meaningful for our ancestors, who were for the most part ordinary working men and women, whether they were urban guild workers or rural farm workers, and not elite scholastics only concerned with what was "verifiable" in someone's rigidly anal sense.
Of course folklore is not verifiable. That's why it's folklore. George Washington chopping down the cherry tree is folklore. Odds are, it didn't really happen. But it's part of America's mythological history and is recognized as such. But if you were writing a scholarly biography of George Washington from verifiable sources, you would not include the cherry tree story, because it is folklore.

You mention the contrast between "ordinary working men and women" and "elite scholastics". I recognize that you dislike Hutton's approach, but he never attempts to hide the fact that it is a scholarly approach, that he is looking at history from an academic viewpoint. If you wish to call that elitism, that's you're prerogative. Luckily, we are part of a large and varied community, and there is room for all sorts of viewpoints.

Valnorran

May 3rd, 2005, 10:31 AM

and instead use empirical facts to jump to the most outlandish conclusions, linking Masonic history to everything from the Hittites to Jesus.
;) Oh, great! I suppose next you'll be telling the the world isn't run by the Illuminati!
George Washington chopping down the cherry tree is folklore. Odds are, it didn't really happen.
I always pictured it happening like this:

"George, did you chop down my cherry tree?"
"Father, I cannot tell a lie... it was that little Adams punk!"

Darkdale

May 3rd, 2005, 10:33 AM

;) Oh, great! I suppose next you'll be telling the the world isn't run by the Illuminati!

Are you trying to say that it's not! *Shakes Head* My whole life, I've been living a lie. :(

Ben Trismegistus

May 3rd, 2005, 10:37 AM

;) Oh, great! I suppose next you'll be telling the the world isn't run by the Illuminati!
Man if only. Here I joined the Masons expecting to run the world, and it's more like a freakin' VFW meeting!

"George, did you chop down my cherry tree?"
"Father, I cannot tell a lie... it was that little Adams punk!"
"Father, that depends on what the meaning of the word 'chop' is."

Silverfire Darkmoon

May 3rd, 2005, 12:36 PM

Erm.........the argument about the faeries....well, Triumph of the Moon talks about *modern pagan British witchcraft*. He doesn't mention Ireland at all.
Given a choice between twits like Margaret Murray and all the Burning Times crowd or Ronald Hutton and Rossel Hope Robbins, I know who I'd choose.
If I come across as rude, I'm rather irritated. I was subjected to people singing a song that was clearly based on the chant Isobel Gowdie used to transform into a hare by the poer of Satan and questions regarding that were ignored. Argh.

Carla O'Harris

May 3rd, 2005, 02:16 PM

T

Of course folklore is not verifiable. That's why it's folklore. George Washington chopping down the cherry tree is folklore. Odds are, it didn't really happen. But it's part of America's mythological history and is recognized as such. But if you were writing a scholarly biography of George Washington from verifiable sources, you would not include the cherry tree story, because it is folklore.

You mention the contrast between "ordinary working men and women" and "elite scholastics". I recognize that you dislike Hutton's approach, but he never attempts to hide the fact that it is a scholarly approach, that he is looking at history from an academic viewpoint. If you wish to call that elitism, that's you're prerogative. Luckily, we are part of a large and varied community, and there is room for all sorts of viewpoints.

I don't know that I'd call the George Washington story "folklore". I think it's more akin to "fakelore", but ok, yes, we wouldn't use it historically. However, if we found recorded accounts that people believed in ghosts in George Washington's time, then that becomes a folkloric FACT : people believed in ghosts. If certain stories were recorded as circulating, then that becomes a FACT that we know those stories were circulating. If someone collects rituals people performed to protect themselves from ghosts, then we have FACTS about rituals people performed. THAT is what I'm discussing when we talk about folklore.

These same things apply to people's belief in fairies, which is Pan-European (although differentiate in its expression). The belief in fairies is particularly relevant to our discussion because of its historic connection to witchcraft phenomena. To understand how people thought of and acted towards fairies in a given time period is to grasp a great deal of the witchy-phenomena. In fact, what Murray and others called the faith of the witches is more accurately rendered by Evan-Wentz's term "The Fairy Faith". These are facts because they are actual beliefs and practices written down. (It's not the writing down that makes them facts. The fact that they are circulating and can be referred to in common makes them facts.) These facts can be thematically analysed to see what common themes emerge.

The themes in common when one analyses fairy folklore, or fairy oral literature if you prefer, directly contradict Hutton's assertions.

The fairies have always been loosely connected with pastoralism and the Greenwood (wild nature) ; they mediated in the powers of cunning folk ; they often were led by a Queen and King or Lord and Lady (a duotheism reflected in many ritual practices : Hutton himself documents Lords and Ladies of festivals being chosen as far back as the 1200's, which simply means it was the first time someone bothered to write it down) ; the fairies were known as magical beings who could pass on knowledge of magic ; they were connected with the old gods ; they were seen during ecstatic trances or visions ; they were alleged in the stories to be able to be seen through the usage of various ointments ; they often stole / killed children ; they mated with humans, etc. etc. : all themes of the so-called "witch cult". Oh, I should add that they are perenially confused with "witches", and that Eva Pocs makes clear that witches may be considered a kind of "fairy priestess", and this is from her rigorous studies of witchcraft trials themselves.

What I am saying here is that there is strong grounding for practically everything Murray and Gardner assert. Certainly they made bombastic over-the-top claims, but they were pioneers. Murray saw a much more dogmatic, monolithic style cult rather than a perennial eruption of practices stemming from fairy folklore, and critics are correct to want to break up some of this dogmatism, but an essential kernal can be found to be correct. The themes are all there ; they can be shown to be beliefs of the common people, and where beliefs are, practices follow (and v.v.) ; and indeed, we do have collections of actual practices as well. Not all of these perfectly line up with Murray and Gardner, but they provide astounding parallels.

Ben Trismegistus

May 3rd, 2005, 02:39 PM

I don't know that I'd call the George Washington story "folklore". I think it's more akin to "fakelore", but ok, yes, we wouldn't use it historically. However, if we found recorded accounts that people believed in ghosts in George Washington's time, then that becomes a folkloric FACT : people believed in ghosts. If certain stories were recorded as circulating, then that becomes a FACT that we know those stories were circulating. If someone collects rituals people performed to protect themselves from ghosts, then we have FACTS about rituals people performed. THAT is what I'm discussing when we talk about folklore.
I think perhaps we're talking about different things. Recorded accounts that people believed in ghosts in George Washington's time would not be folklore, it would be anecdotal evidence. If there was an oft-repeated story passed down several generations that the ghost of George Washington continues to haunt Valley Forge, THAT would be folklore. Folklore is essentially modern mythology (or not-so-modern mythology, as the case may be).

These same things apply to people's belief in fairies, which is Pan-European (although differentiate in its expression). The belief in fairies is particularly relevant to our discussion because of its historic connection to witchcraft phenomena. To understand how people thought of and acted towards fairies in a given time period is to grasp a great deal of the witchy-phenomena. In fact, what Murray and others called the faith of the witches is more accurately rendered by Evan-Wentz's term "The Fairy Faith". These are facts because they are actual beliefs and practices written down. (It's not the writing down that makes them facts. The fact that they are circulating and can be referred to in common makes them facts.) These facts can be thematically analysed to see what common themes emerge.
Perhaps, but the belief in fairies has absolutely nothing to do with Hutton's topic, which is the history of British neo-paganism. Since the book is primarily concerned with what led to the creation and dispersion of Wicca, the belief in fairies would only be a side note. And the book is long enough as it is. After all, there's plenty of documented evidence of the pagan beliefs of the Africans and the Native Americans, but these had little or no influence or Wicca either.

The fairies have always been loosely connected with pastoralism and the Greenwood (wild nature) ; they mediated in the powers of cunning folk ; they often were led by a Queen and King or Lord and Lady (a duotheism reflected in many ritual practices : Hutton himself documents Lords and Ladies of festivals being chosen as far back as the 1200's, which simply means it was the first time someone bothered to write it down) ; the fairies were known as magical beings who could pass on knowledge of magic ; they were connected with the old gods ; they were seen during ecstatic trances or visions ; they were alleged in the stories to be able to be seen through the usage of various ointments ; they often stole / killed children ; they mated with humans, etc. etc. : all themes of the so-called "witch cult". Oh, I should add that they are perenially confused with "witches", and that Eva Pocs makes clear that witches may be considered a kind of "fairy priestess", and this is from her rigorous studies of witchcraft trials themselves.
Perhaps, and maybe you could make the argument that fairy belief was an indirect influence, but it sounds to me like the information you're presenting belongs in an entirely separate book.

What I am saying here is that there is strong grounding for practically everything Murray and Gardner assert. Certainly they made bombastic over-the-top claims, but they were pioneers. Murray saw a much more dogmatic, monolithic style cult rather than a perennial eruption of practices stemming from fairy folklore, and critics are correct to want to break up some of this dogmatism, but an essential kernal can be found to be correct. The themes are all there ; they can be shown to be beliefs of the common people, and where beliefs are, practices follow (and v.v.) ; and indeed, we do have collections of actual practices as well. Not all of these perfectly line up with Murray and Gardner, but they provide astounding parallels.
That Murray was correct in some of the details but horribly wrong in the big picture doesn't make me want to particularly support her. And Gardner's theories were based largely on Murray's.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow your point. Are you simply upset at the absence of fairy folklore from Hutton's book?

Carla O'Harris

May 3rd, 2005, 02:50 PM

Yes, because it makes a crucial difference. Hutton is making statements about neopaganism. The Fairy Folklore or Faith essentially IS paganism, an absolutely lasting and surviving form ; and so when Hutton says that paganism died in the 1100's he is making a false statement. That is extremely important. When he makes statements about people's connection to nature, their experience of "Pan" for example (why he ignores Robin Goodfellow is beyond me, and in point of fact his treatment of Pan is just plain wrong), and the experiences of cunning folk, he's being misleading.

Darkdale

May 3rd, 2005, 02:55 PM

When he makes statements about people's connection to nature, their experience of "Pan" for example (why he ignores Robin Goodfellow is beyond me, and in point of fact his treatment of Pan is just plain wrong), and the experiences of cunning folk, he's being misleading.

What did he say that was misleading? What evidence to you have that proves he was wrong?

Carla O'Harris

May 3rd, 2005, 03:30 PM

What did he say that was misleading? What evidence to you have that proves he was wrong?

He says there was little interest in a Pan-figure prior to the Romantic age, but in fact, Robin Goodfellow is presented in a very Pan-like manner and stretches back at least to Shakespeare's time. In fact, such a satyr-like being exists at least from Adam de la Halle's Play of the Greenwood.

He implies that there was little interest in nature or nature as a spirituality prior to this same time period. Patently false.

He says there was little interest in Goddesses. Well, I guess you could say that the Queen of the Fairies is NOT a Goddess, but that's just a matter of semantics. Extremely powerful spirit being ruling over other spirit beings and female sounds like a goddess to me. Not to mention Mary, who was then replaced by the Cult of Elizabeth. It's sloppy scholarship.

So far from having to "find" a goddess, "find" a god, "find" a folklore, it was all there. It wasn't something recently invented. I call that misleading.

Darkdale

May 3rd, 2005, 03:40 PM

Carla O'Harris

May 3rd, 2005, 03:52 PM

Let me add another point. It is not true that cunning folk in England did not consult fairies, although there appears to be a shift in emphasis with the literization that Protestantism brought bringing more of a focus on grimoires.

But a penetrating scholar would ask whether this grimoire-work of conjuring spirits did not substantially in some ways fulfill a similar function, and thus represented a syncretization that fit the times but was still substantially the same.

He should have pointed out that in other parts of Europe cunning-folk were often thought of as "fairy doctors" or "fairy priestesses", and then wondered what happened in England that made the percentages much less. This is relevant to his discussion.

To me it seems pretty obvious why this was discluded. The moment you include the connection between cunning folk and the fairies, the entire argument that witches were made up in the late 1800's and early 1900's completely crumbles, because then in fact you see the entire complex stretching back to late Medieval and early Modern times when we start getting trial information. I mean, what is the modern Wiccan-influenced image of a witch?

A shaman-like figure who acted as a village healer/midwife who worshipped an ancient religion consisting of a Lord and Lady, working magic for the good, and whose religion was diabolized by Christianity.

Well, this is substantially correct. It is substantially correct (with all kinds of variations, of course). When you add the fairies, ruled by a King and Queen, who teach magic, who are constantly called demons by the Church, who teach visionaries how to heal, and who cause imbalances when humans are imbalanced towards them which cunning folk can help mediate, you find that the image holds.

Now it's also apparent that the specific rituals Gardner revealed were grimoire/Masonically based. But that still doesn't present a problem or a negation, because as Pocs points out, fairy-style cunning-folk have creatively interacted with elite magic for some time (and indeed, where does elite magic come from? It, too, often has a folk basis somewhere back in time) without losing their autochthonic integrity ; and, as Dr. Bob James has pointed out, the folk had a masonic-style culture with all kinds of variations on official Freemasonry that could have -- could have (it's also possible Gardner simply creatively adapted Freemason rituals : absolutely) -- been organizational forms alleged covens of witches may have drawn upon. In fact, given the ubiquity of the guild-form as a style of organization amongst the people, I'd find it surprising if a group of people organizing together DIDN'T draw upon that matrix, and that could --could -- explain some of the masonic elements.

Let's underline a couple things : even the medieval guilds had devout rituals to patron saints. Now, Hutton might tell us that is pure Catholicism. Not quite, however, because there are clear traces of saints preserving blatantly pagan ritual and imagery ; in addition, we actually have documented evidence of working class guilds actually acting as priesthoods for blatantly pagan rituals : see Pamela Berger's documentation of the Nerthus-style rituals that were organized by the Guild of Weavers. She also provides evidence that some of the Mystery Pageant Plays may have included the Grain Miracle which is a pagan agrarian myth and connected with Earth Mother rituals -- and this would have been performed in England. Now, one can take two slants on this : these isolated incidences may represent archaic vestigial survivals and be thought anomalies ; or, seeing this, one might look for other survivals not so blatant beneath other mystery plays and pageantries. And if one doesn't think people with clearly pagan sensibilities can hide what they are doing under a Catholic veneer, one simply hasn't studied Santeria, which again is a clear derivation of Yoruba paganism. One can see this again and again, especially in Catholicism in Latin America, where to this day cults of saints preserve older indigenous lore. In fact, one might utilize these examples -- far better studied -- to construct a rubric or model from which to interpret early Saint-lore and ritual in Europe. One has to keep in mind that prior to the Reformation and Council of Trent, saint ritual was MUCH more wild and pagan, including Priapic saints!!

Grimoires are often heavily influenced by Hermeticism, which came out of the Gnostic matrix. It is important to note that Gnosticism was very often pagan-friendly and included pagan mythology. They also drew upon Kabbalistic lore, which again, originated in the South of France and in Spain under a mutual influence of Gnostic Cathars and Mystic Sufis -- again, another connection with Gnosticism.

Perhaps constructing another rubric (here I think of the wondrous work that John Dominic Crossan has done for the historical Jesus by providing anthropological models that really elucidate the original context and thus make his arguments much more coherent) would be helpful : one of cyphers. The ability to make one thing mean another thing (a basic symbolic capacity) is a way to survive a cultural revolution. I could worship in any religion and so long as I find specific anchors within that religion that act as ciphers for my own personal or cultic meanings, I could be engaging in my own religion.

That is essentially what the Gnostics did, and what the Mystery Cults did : as Landauer said, building the new within the shell of the old, or perhaps we might reverse that, preserving the old within the shell of the new. It's the basic distinction between esoteric and exoteric, and those who understand this can convert anything into a Mystery. That means we can't look simply to the outer forms, although we must study those carefully as well.

Carla O'Harris

May 3rd, 2005, 04:01 PM

Carla, the only problem is, is that your objections are entirely left up to interpretation. It depends on how you look at it, really. I don't think he was sloppy, I just think he comes from a different point of view. Really, I don't think anyone has come as close as Hutton to providing such a fair and objective account of modern witchcraft and where it came from. There may be errors, but I don't think they were major.

I'm not sure what this means. Everything is a matter of interpretation. With that logic, his book is not objective, it is a matter of interpretation. How can you write history without interpretation? You're making judgement calls about what data to include and what data to disclude, what interpretations you're going to place on certain authors and documents, and how you're going to treat them. There's nothing objective about that process at all. Sure, you may be dealing with factual documents : ie., documents that actually exist. But they must be interpreted, and you must make judgement calls, and Hutton is full of judgement calls. More importantly, errors of omission are very important when it comes to history. As I've pointed out, what he does NOT say crucially affects his argument. When I say crucially, I mean crucially. It crucially means that witchcraft as such was not fundamentally made up in the 1940's or the late 1800's. It had a long, long prehistory that he practically ignores, even though fairy mythology is so blatant as to be staring him right in the face. (Personally, I don't have a problem with saying that witchcraft was made up in the 1940's, as long as we also say it was made up in the 1600's, and the 1500's, and the 1300's, and the 1200's, and millennia back : autochthonic spirituality is always a creative affair, but it creates from the basis of existing culture and folklore, as well as a set of practices.)

Hutton HAS provided some very very valuable information and contexts, as I have repeatedly stated. Sadly though, they are couched in such dismissing judgements that they lead the reader astray unless a very careful reading is done. For example, when he documents that literate elites suddenly began to "have ideas" about witchcraft in the late 1800's and into the 1900's, why doesn't he explore the idea that finally the elite were beginning to listen to what was going on at a folkloric level? Instead of imagining a conjuring ex nihilo, why not a discovery? A creative discovery perhaps, but perhaps still a discovery. I'm not saying he's required to take that interpretation, but he should at least present it as a possibility.

MorningDove030202

May 3rd, 2005, 04:08 PM

From the link in the first post:
Description

Perhaps since its formal debut, Wicca has increasingly come under the eyes of corrosive skeptics who would erase it from underneath itself in the historical record, generating a great deal of scholarship. This scholarship, however, can become the basis for a much more rigorous and fit Wicca that is capable of answering its critics. Focusing especially on Ronald Hutton and his school of scholars, this group will be a forum for the rebuttal of such dismissive skepticism, towards the strengthening of our faith.

Call me crazy, but Triumph of the Moon actualy streghtened my faith in that it taught me the truth about where it realy came from, instead of the "initiated by my grandma" myths that once were very common.
Dove

Carla O'Harris

May 3rd, 2005, 04:21 PM

From the link in the first post:

Call me crazy, but Triumph of the Moon actualy streghtened my faith in that it taught me the truth about where it realy came from, instead of the "initiated by my grandma" myths that once were very common.
Dove

So now Hutton's book is teaching "the truth"? It's no longer a creative historical survey of some Possible influences on an alleged invention? I'm afraid I have no interest in electing Hutton Wiccan Pope or even Wiccan Aquinas!!

Heselton has shown the distinct possibility that there indeed was a coven that initiated Gardner, that may possibly be traced back to the early 1900's or even late 1800's. I've been arguing with others that significant traces of the patterns Margaret Murray identified can be found in the historical record as well.

To read a book that gave more of the truth about witchcraft, I'd read Pocs or Ginzburg. That would bring us up to the 1700's. The history from that point on remains to be written. It would require a rigorous and extensive examination of Freemasonry and its masonic culture base, the interaction of cunning folk with masonic organizations, the role of hermeticism in all this ; and then, and only then, would Hutton's work provide a context for understanding phenomena that quite possibly existed all along by showing its surfacing in literary contexts.

dr_zeus440

May 3rd, 2005, 04:27 PM

5 points for persistence, carla. if nothing else.

Valnorran

May 3rd, 2005, 05:12 PM

Another few points for selling me on "Triumph of the Moon." I'm definately going to have to read this book.

raven grimassi

May 3rd, 2005, 08:00 PM

Hutton himself documents Lords and Ladies of festivals being chosen as far back as the 1200's, which simply means it was the first time someone bothered to write it down)

You hit on something noteworthy here, because lack of documentation does not equate with non-existence. When scholars point to the earliest references to something, they often take the position that this dates the origin of the concept (or whatever it might be). As you note, it could also simply be the first time someone commented on it (and whose writings then survived). It may be that it was previously unknown to the commentator, or that they mentioned it for a specific reason (which had nothing to do with origins, but had to do with simply reporting on a certain event for whatever pertinent reason).

I've noted that when a scholar states that there is "no evidence" to support this or that, that many people think this means that no one ever wrote about the matter or commented on it. But what it really means is that such material does exist, it just is not accepted by scholars as being authentic or reliable documentation. Since it is the scholars who decide what constitutes acceptable evidence and what does not, this can and does color their own conclusions. To me it is not unlike attorneys who keep evidence out of a trial in order to win their case, or who hope to dismiss real and damaging evidence by getting the jury to ignore the evidence because the witness is a shady character (as though a shady character is incapable of seeing and accurately reporting an event).

I often hear people say "Well, scholars say there is no evidence to support that, and surely if this existed then people would have written about it or mentioned it, and so the scholars must be right".

What they fail to realize is that contrary material does indeed exist in many forms, but the scholars conveniently dismiss it for a variety of reasons, which leaves the erroneous impression that contrary material is non-existent. This, in turn, contributes to many of the erroneous conclusions that plague our community.

What I am saying here is that there is strong grounding for practically everything Murray and Gardner assert. Certainly they made bombastic over-the-top claims, but they were pioneers. Murray saw a much more dogmatic, monolithic style cult rather than a perennial eruption of practices stemming from fairy folklore, and critics are correct to want to break up some of this dogmatism, but an essential kernal can be found to be correct. The themes are all there ; they can be shown to be beliefs of the common people, and where beliefs are, practices follow (and v.v.) ; and indeed, we do have collections of actual practices as well. Not all of these perfectly line up with Murray and Gardner, but they provide astounding parallels.

It is interesting to note the commonality of themes found throughout Europe, especially when we consider the limitations or lack of mass communication in older times. And yet, as in the case of Witchcraft, we find throughout Europe the mention of a horned figure, a queen or goddess figure, a festival or ritual setting, and themes related to fertility and magical experiences.

My own personal view is that we do not need an ancient history in order to be valid. We just happen to have one, which is frequently denied us by the academic community and others.

Best regards - Raven

Ben Trismegistus

May 4th, 2005, 09:39 AM

What they fail to realize is that contrary material does indeed exist in many forms, but the scholars conveniently dismiss it for a variety of reasons, which leaves the erroneous impression that contrary material is non-existent. This, in turn, contributes to many of the erroneous conclusions that plague our community.
The alternative, however, is the increasing anti-intellectualism which plagues not only our community but indeed much of modern culture. If people in positions of authority (call them academics, scholars, elitists, or whatever) do not decide based on a set criteria what material is considered credible and what is not, then the alternative is the idea that all theories can be equally true, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

I can't say for certain that nine million witches did NOT die in the Burning Times, but scholarly information shows that it's highly unlikely. I can't say for certain that there was not a Great Goddess Cult exactly as Murray suggests, but later anthropologists and historians believe that her conclusions were flawed, so I side with them. It's not a matter of saying what is and is not TRUE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT (for none of us can know that), but simply which theories have the greatest amount of credible evidence to support them.

Given a choice between the exclusion of potential useful sources and the rising tide of anti-intellectualism, I'll err on the side of caution.

Carla O'Harris

May 4th, 2005, 10:21 AM

The alternative, however, is the increasing anti-intellectualism which plagues not only our community but indeed much of modern culture. If people in positions of authority (call them academics, scholars, elitists, or whatever) do not decide based on a set criteria what material is considered credible and what is not, then the alternative is the idea that all theories can be equally true, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

I can't say for certain that nine million witches did NOT die in the Burning Times, but scholarly information shows that it's highly unlikely. I can't say for certain that there was not a Great Goddess Cult exactly as Murray suggests, but later anthropologists and historians believe that her conclusions were flawed, so I side with them. It's not a matter of saying what is and is not TRUE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT (for none of us can know that), but simply which theories have the greatest amount of credible evidence to support them.

Given a choice between the exclusion of potential useful sources and the rising tide of anti-intellectualism, I'll err on the side of caution.

I didn't place these people in positions of authority. I'd like some more exploration of exactly what you mean when you say this. It seems an anti-democratic notion. It also seems over-institutionalized, like the authorities will be found only in institutions.

I disagree with your thesis that the alternative to evidence being discluded is that everything goes. The alternative, I think, is to take more into account. Yes, that makes for more work, but it does make for less lazy scholarship, and incidentally, more honest and whole.

I'm not sure which "Great Goddess Cult" you're referring to, but certainly Great Goddesses were worshipped all over in the past ; and there are indications of survival of this even into Christian times.

As to how many non-Christians the Catholic Church massacred over its millennia, this is a disputed figure, in part thanks to massive Catholic spin control -- no one likes to admit to genocide, look at the Turkish government, which "admits" but "downplays", pooh-poohs -- in the deliberate destruction of records, in the accidental destruction of records, and in the present scholarly trend (probably influenced by the massive Catholic spin mentioned earlier) of discounting Protestant reports of Catholic abuses as mere propaganda. Now certainly Protestants were engaged in polemics against Catholicism, which must be figured in, but that does not necessarily mean their protests were inaccurate. When one considers the Crusades, the Albigensian Crusade, the numbers of heretics killed, the number of witches killed either at the stake or more importantly in prison, plus all those killed in the Latin Americas, we're certainly talking millions of people, regardless of how many the millions are. That's not to mention people tortured, etc. The nine million figure derived from someone who was taking into account these larger numbers and identifying with them ; witch numbers were smaller, but when you add heretics in there -- which there is good reason to suspect were connected with the witch-cult and its hermetic/Gnostic heresy -- it's still a pretty hefty number : larger than the 40,000 (Hutton) to 150,000 (other sources) which are still outrageously high. More honest historians admit that early records from the Middle Ages are spotty, and that therefore more numbers must be added. But regardless, even if we take the lowest figure -- 40,000, it's still totally unacceptable. AND -- the amazing spin on the Inquisition has been incredible (and apalling) -- by artificially dividing between the Office of the Inquisition and so-called "secular" authorities whose authority in large part derived from Catholic power, so as to make these seem like entirely separate things. Well, whether you act through a proxy or not, you're still acting ; it's just called "plausible deniability".

But I digress. Agreement or disagreement about Mother Goddesses or Catholic Genocide is perhaps less important than Raven's point about the disclusion of information from the get-go, which is nonparticipatory. We as readers are not invited in to share in these decision-makings, and we are not given fair access to the evidence, and that's not good scholarship. Scholarship is not delegating leaders who do the right thing for us. It's people who are dedicated to exploring, share their explorations, and present us with choices ; then, they can add their own two cents.

Darkdale

May 4th, 2005, 10:42 AM

Given a choice between the exclusion of potential useful sources and the rising tide of anti-intellectualism, I'll err on the side of caution.

Very well said. The only problem we have to deal with, is to allow for the possibility that the academic world will make mistakes, and when the evidence builds toward that conclusion, to not dogmatically ignore it. Not that this is the case with Ronald Hutton, because I don't think that is case here. However, the points Carla are making are valid - within a certain context. Her conclusions may be wrong with regard to Huttons work, but her caution with regard to the institution of "accepted sources" isn't wrong. The authority of the academic institutions should be questioned, so long as the perspective from which it is questioned isn't equally dogmatic (especially with regard to anti-intellectual perspectives such as, just because there isn't any evidence, doesn't mean it didn't happen. This kind of relativism doesn't get us anywhere).

MorningDove030202

May 4th, 2005, 10:52 AM

I don't realy even understand why this is such a big deal? I think StarHawk said it best in her essay.....

Religion From Nature, Not Archaeology
Starhawk Responds to the Atlantic Monthly

http://www.starhawk.org/pagan/religion-from-nature.html

Goddess religion is not based on belief, in history, in archaeology, in any Great Goddess past or present. Our spirituality is based on experience, on a direct relationship with the cycles of birth, growth, death and regeneration in nature and in human lives. We see the complex interwoven web of life as sacred, which is to say, real and important, worth protecting, worth taking a stand for.

Dove

Ben Gruagach

May 4th, 2005, 10:57 AM

In many ways it comes down to whether you personally are impressed by a particular groups' claims.

It's easy to convince "True Believers" that something is real. It's hard to impress skeptics that something is real. I'm much more impressed by claims that convince even the skeptics.

Ben Trismegistus

May 4th, 2005, 11:06 AM

I didn't place these people in positions of authority. I'd like some more exploration of exactly what you mean when you say this. It seems an anti-democratic notion. It also seems over-institutionalized, like the authorities will be found only in institutions.
What does democracy have to do with it? It's the very nature of academics that they should be found in academia. Like I said earlier, there are plenty of books on pagan history that are not academic in the sense of following the rules of historical research set out by a body of learned historians. If you want to see other sources included, there are plenty of other opportunities.

I disagree with your thesis that the alternative to evidence being discluded is that everything goes. The alternative, I think, is to take more into account. Yes, that makes for more work, but it does make for less lazy scholarship, and incidentally, more honest and whole.
Then it's completely abitrary. You're arguing that, in discriminating between sources, we are looking at a choice between what I (or Hutton) find to be useful, and what you find to be useful. And therefore it's not "lazy scholarship", but rather a personal disagreement about what sources are credible and what are not.

I'm not sure which "Great Goddess Cult" you're referring to, but certainly Great Goddesses were worshipped all over in the past ; and there are indications of survival of this even into Christian times.
I'm referring to Murray's thesis that all of the individual Goddesses worshipped around the world were representatives of a single world-wide Goddess Cult - a world religion in which all goddesses were One Goddess, cross-culturally. There is no credible evidence to support this theory.

As to how many non-Christians the Catholic Church massacred over its millennia, this is a disputed figure, in part thanks to massive Catholic spin control...etc.
I'm not talking about how many non-Christians the Catholic Church massacred over its millennia. I'm referring specifically to the Matilda Joslyn Gage figure that nine million women and children were killed during "The Burning Times", the period in Catholic history when they were convicted people of what they perceived to be witchcraft. Nine million people was a much larger proportion of the world's population at the time than the six million people who died in the Holocaust. There is no amount of "Catholic spin" that could hide such an enormous number of people. It's simply not plausible.

But I digress. Agreement or disagreement about Mother Goddesses or Catholic Genocide is perhaps less important than Raven's point about the disclusion of information from the get-go, which is nonparticipatory.
And like I said, if you're arguing against being nonparticipatory, the only alternative is to be all-inclusive. If you disregard ANY source, it's being nonparticipatory. So what you're arguing instead is that you and the people you agree with should be the ones to decide what gets excluded.

We as readers are not invited in to share in these decision-makings, and we are not given fair access to the evidence, and that's not good scholarship. Scholarship is not delegating leaders who do the right thing for us. It's people who are dedicated to exploring, share their explorations, and present us with choices ; then, they can add their own two cents.
That's crazy. The purpose of a scholar is to choose that information which he perceives to be significant, and to use that information to form and present a thesis. It's not the purpose of a scholar to provide EVERYTHING and let the reader come to his or her own conclusion. If you want to base your own opinion on all the evidence that's available, by all means, do your own research and write your own book.

I guarantee that the other authors that you respect pick and choose their sources in order to form their conclusions. You just like them better because you like their conclusions better - that has nothing to do with whether they're good scholars or not. A book which included everything that might possibly contribute to modern neo-paganism would be many thousands of pages long, and mind-numbingly boring besides.

raven grimassi

May 4th, 2005, 11:14 AM

Ben Trismegistus

May 4th, 2005, 11:28 AM

I do support the idea of a structure or a standard, but I feel that people need to understand that it is not infallible. I do not believe that all theories are true, but I do believe that there are truths beyond the theories. But my primary point is about how people misunderstand what scholars are saying when they make statements such as there is no evidence to support this or that. At one point in human history our academics would have argued that there is no evidence that the earth is round and revolves around the sun.
I agree, and I don't think that anyone is arguing that it is infallible. Hutton certainly goes out of his way to present his conclusions as theories, and in some cases even present alternative explanations. I think he is very descriptive about what sources he chose to use and why. As long as scholarship is transparent like that, I can respect the choices made by the scholar himself.

Historians frequently change what is "true" as new data appears, which means they were previously wrong during the time people believed they were right. So I am cautious regarding the current empirical truths of our scholars.
Certainly, but I personally choose to accept what today's scholars say as being accurate for our time. I have neither the energy nor the inclination to doubt EVERYTHING. If contradictory evidence appears which challenges one of my theories, I will certainly be willing to change or adapt those theories.

I agree, but the problem is that people call the opposing views "falsehoods" and not alternative interpretations. Therein lies the problem. One theory may be much more likely than another, but it does not automatically render the other a falsehood.
A semantic argument, and one I'm willing to concede to you.

I personally do not see a "rising tide of anti-intellectualism" but instead a rising tide of self-discernment. The modern peasants are no longer afraid to question the Nobles, and when the Emperor has no clothes it is no longer only the child that points it out.
Yes, but it is a rare few of us who actually does the sort of research necessary to form our own conclusions. No book is presented without bias. Most of us are simply choosing the bias which most suits our fancy.

Ben Gruagach

May 4th, 2005, 11:33 AM

By the way, the claim that nine million were put to death for the crime of witchcraft is repeated by Gerald Gardner in "Witchcraft Today." It's in the caption for one of the photos reproduced in the book (it's at the back of my copy included with the Castletown museum pictures.) The caption says:
Memorial at the Museum of Magic and Witchcraft, Castletown, dedicated to Margrate ine Quane and her young son who were burned alive on the charge of witchcraft at Castletown, A.D. 1617, and to nine million victims in Europe who went to the stake on the same charge.

Many authors who wrote about witchcraft after Gardner's book was published picked up on what Gardner said as being authoritative so it's no wonder that some questionable claims have become so widespread.

Carla O'Harris

May 4th, 2005, 11:58 AM

"A book which included everything that might possibly contribute to modern neo-paganism would be many thousands of pages long,"

Bring it on!!

Ben Gruagach

May 4th, 2005, 12:31 PM

"A book which included everything that might possibly contribute to modern neo-paganism would be many thousands of pages long,"

Bring it on!!

It's an impossible task as the knowledge base is constantly growing and changing. It would necessarily have to be written by every person who ever lived just to keep up with all the opinions and outlooks.

Realistically, we have to look at every book as being the findings or opinions of that particular author or group of authors, based on what they knew at the time they wrote it. It's always going to be a small slice of the whole picture -- and a small slice from a particular viewpoint.

No one book can be all things to all people. Just like, in my opinion, there is no such thing as One True Religion that is perfect for all people all the time.

MorningDove030202

May 4th, 2005, 12:57 PM

Such a books exists... it's called The INTERNET......

Dove

raven grimassi

May 5th, 2005, 02:27 AM

I agree, and I don't think that anyone is arguing that it is infallible.

You would probably be surprised then to go through some of the mail I receive.

but I personally choose to accept what today's scholars say as being accurate for our time.

That is your choice and your right, and I respect that. For me, the value of scholars is that they offer data that it would take me years to stumble across and assemble on mine own. But I often disagree with their interpretation of the data and their resulting conclusions.

I have neither the energy nor the inclination to doubt EVERYTHING.

I share the sentiment, and for me it is more about how reasonable their dismissals are, and how sound is their rejection of the anomalies that they ignore.

but it is a rare few of us who actually does the sort of research necessary to form our own conclusions.

I agree, and that is my core concern with people who believe that a scholar is correct simply because he or she is a scholar.

No book is presented without bias. Most of us are simply choosing the bias which most suits our fancy.

No argument here.

Best regards - Raven

Ben Trismegistus

May 5th, 2005, 10:27 AM

You would probably be surprised then to go through some of the mail I receive. OK, I'll rephrase and say that I don't think anyone with even a modicum of sense is arguing that it's infallible. ;)

That is your choice and your right, and I respect that. For me, the value of scholars is that they offer data that it would take me years to stumble across and assemble on mine own. But I often disagree with their interpretation of the data and their resulting conclusions. Questioning is always a good thing.

I share the sentiment, and for me it is more about how reasonable their dismissals are, and how sound is their rejection of the anomalies that they ignore. Agreed.

I agree, and that is my core concern with people who believe that a scholar is correct simply because he or she is a scholar. Well, I'm not suggesting a scholar is correct "simply because he or she is a scholar", but rather than in many cases, a scholar is correct because of the experience, background, and credentials that make them a scholar. I consider Ronald Hutton much more qualified than I am to form conclusions regarding history, because he holds degrees in history from Cambridge and Oxford, is a professor of history at the University of Bristol, and is widely respected in both the pagan and historian community. Now you could make the argument that degrees and experience and background don't make Hutton any more likely to reach "correct" conclusions about history than me, and in a sense you'd be right, but common sense would dictate that his degrees and experience and background certainly make him much more likely than me to form correct conclusions.

Thanks Raven, it's always a pleasure to spar with you.

Regards,
Ben

Maggie

May 5th, 2005, 10:44 AM

Well, I'm not suggesting a scholar is correct "simply because he or she is a scholar", but rather than in many cases, a scholar is correct because of the experience, background, and credentials that make them a scholar.
Regards,
Ben

What is disturbing me about these kinds of debates is an apparently growing bias AGAINST scholars, that anything written by a credentialed "scholar" is suspect precisely for that reason.

I do find it amusing, in a way. The druids were considered to be the intelligentsia of their society; much is made of their devotion to learning, their long years of education, and their power and position in that society. They were the "credentialed scholars" of their day. Would the same suspicions and resentment be leveled against them if an individual disagreed with them?

Maggie

raven grimassi

May 5th, 2005, 09:58 PM

Well, I'm not suggesting a scholar is correct "simply because he or she is a scholar", but rather than in many cases, a scholar is correct because of the experience, background, and credentials that make them a scholar.

Yes, I knew you were not suggesting that, and I understand and appreciate what makes certain scholars have appeal. I respect and trust the research of several myself, even though I do not always agree with their interpretation of the available data.

I consider Ronald Hutton much more qualified than I am to form conclusions regarding history, because he holds degrees in history from Cambridge and Oxford, is a professor of history at the University of Bristol, and is widely respected in both the pagan and historian community.

This is not aimed at Hutton, but I was with a University in San Diego for many years, and believe me, there are a lot of idiots are walking around with degrees. But as for Hutton, I can appreciate that he has had more access to data and to the scholarly interpretation of that data than most of us have, which gives him a considerable edge regarding insights. But I have seen him present as fact, things that are easily and readily recognized as not being factual. So he may not fit as nicely up there on the pedestal as much as you might think.

Now you could make the argument that degrees and experience and background don't make Hutton any more likely to reach "correct" conclusions about history than me, and in a sense you'd be right, but common sense would dictate that his degrees and experience and background certainly make him much more likely than me to form correct conclusions.

Well, Ben, you might be selling yourself a bit short there. You seem like a very capable fellow to me.

Thanks Raven, it's always a pleasure to spar with you.

Oh, is that what we are doing!? ;)

In any case, it is always a pleasure to kick the ball around with you.

What is disturbing me about these kinds of debates is an apparently growing bias AGAINST scholars, that anything written by a credentialed "scholar" is suspect precisely for that reason.

I can appreciate why you might think so. What I think is happening is that a segment of our community is reacting to certain comments by the academic community. There are those in our community who are referred to by scholars as "clinging to discredited beliefs" and refusing to let go of "falsehoods". They find such depictions of themselves as offensive, for they see themselves as simply embracing alternative views or interpretations (not as morons who just do not get it).

So, I think there is a knee-jerk reaction, and we are observing what might be described as a quasi Robin Hood versus the Nobles scenario. Any Noble riding through Sherwood is now a target for an arrow.

I do find it amusing, in a way. The druids were considered to be the intelligentsia of their society; much is made of their devotion to learning, their long years of education, and their power and position in that society. They were the "credentialed scholars" of their day. Would the same suspicions and resentment be leveled against them if an individual disagreed with them?

It would probably have depended on the attitude of the Druids towards (and the treatment of) those common folk who expressed alternative views.

Best regards - Raven

Maggie

May 5th, 2005, 10:54 PM

I can appreciate why you might think so. What I think is happening is that a segment of our community is reacting to certain comments by the academic community. There are those in our community who are referred to by scholars as "clinging to discredited beliefs" and refusing to let go of "falsehoods". They find such depictions of themselves as offensive, for they see themselves as simply embracing alternative views or interpretations (not as morons who just do not get it).

Hmmmmm. I find myself rather ambivalent about both views. I mentioned in another thread entirely one time that when religious beliefs and academia try to get into bed together some very strange nights result. Thing is, religous *beliefs* are pretty much entirely subjective and can't be proven. If someone gets off believing the ancient Druids are descendants of Atlantis, oh well. But if that same someone states that he/she can PROVE it by x, y and z then x,y, and z are fair game for debate. I have real problems with Gimbutas because of this. On the other hand, do those who believe the Shroud of Turin is real going to be swayed by the scientific proof that it's not possible?

But, if they are confident, happy, content with--pick your adjective--with their own beliefs and their own scholarship, why is approval by those scholars they deride of any importance? What difference does it make that others believe them to be wrong? Such strong defense of their own scholarship and even stronger criticism of others leads me to believe that academic acceptance IS important to them. Or why bother?

So, I think there is a knee-jerk reaction, and we are observing what might be described as a quasi Robin Hood versus the Nobles scenario. Any Noble riding through Sherwood is now a target for an arrow.

Which is kinda silly, don't you think?

It would probably have depended on the attitude of the Druids towards (and the treatment of) those common folk who expressed alternative views.

Best regards - Raven

Which is an interesting question. Was there any dissent? How "hardline" were the druids? Do we have any indication that the society adminstered by the druids was any more tolerant than our own? Were the "common folk" even allowed to express alternative views? Or would such dissenting views have been viewed as dangerous to the well being of their society?

I have to admit that it's a bit odd to be "chatting" with you now. You and your Raven's Call and Patrick and Lew Percus gave me invaluable help and advice when I was just starting out quite some years ago now. :)

Maggie

Carla O'Harris

May 6th, 2005, 01:13 AM

What is disturbing me about these kinds of debates is an apparently growing bias AGAINST scholars, that anything written by a credentialed "scholar" is suspect precisely for that reason.

I do find it amusing, in a way. The druids were considered to be the intelligentsia of their society; much is made of their devotion to learning, their long years of education, and their power and position in that society. They were the "credentialed scholars" of their day. Would the same suspicions and resentment be leveled against them if an individual disagreed with them?

Maggie

Skepticism of scholars is always a healthy thing, I think ; and it gives scholars a kick in the pants to remember who they are supposed to be serving. It is far too easy for scholars to become enthralled to a self-serving and frankly self-referential clique that exists in the ivory towers ; and history is replete with examples of the experts being JUST PLAIN WRONG.

That doesn't mean I have a bias against scholars ; it means I have a bias against BAD SCHOLARS, and there are plenty of bad scholars out there.

However, that means I appreciate the good ones even more. :)

And again, while it is true that you can't include absolutely everything, as someone lampooned earlier, it is also true that one of the characteristics of a good scholar is to be as inclusive as possible, even in a survey, and to be fair to the sources, in good faith.

To be fair, there are absolutely times in "Triumph" where Hutton shows this sensitivity and fairness. I've noted them in ink in my book. However, there are other times -- crucial points in the argument -- where he does not or he omits important points.

Believe me, I'm not for kneejerk anything, but frankly I think kneejerk acceptance of scholars because they are scholars is actually worse than kneejerk rejection.

Maybe we can find something intelligent and juicy in the middle. :)

Maggie

May 6th, 2005, 02:06 AM

Skepticism of scholars is always a healthy thing, I think ; and it gives scholars a kick in the pants to remember who they are supposed to be serving. It is far too easy for scholars to become enthralled to a self-serving and frankly self-referential clique that exists in the ivory towers ; and history is replete with examples of the experts being JUST PLAIN WRONG.

That doesn't mean I have a bias against scholars ; it means I have a bias against BAD SCHOLARS, and there are plenty of bad scholars out there.

However, that means I appreciate the good ones even more. :)

And again, while it is true that you can't include absolutely everything, as someone lampooned earlier, it is also true that one of the characteristics of a good scholar is to be as inclusive as possible, even in a survey, and to be fair to the sources, in good faith.

To be fair, there are absolutely times in "Triumph" where Hutton shows this sensitivity and fairness. I've noted them in ink in my book. However, there are other times -- crucial points in the argument -- where he does not or he omits important points.

Believe me, I'm not for kneejerk anything, but frankly I think kneejerk acceptance of scholars because they are scholars is actually worse than kneejerk rejection.

Maybe we can find something intelligent and juicy in the middle. :)

I find this whole debate curious, in a way. Pagan history is about the only field I can think of where there is such a large scale rejection of scholarship and scholars. WARNING--I am NOT singling out any particular person here, my remarks are general.

In a larger sense this discussion mirrors *any* religious discussion of history and its interpretations that I've ever seen. Those who disagree with whatever the consensus of opinion is at the moment make very nearly the same kind of comments. I even see the same example usually offered to discredit scholarship--"The experts said the earth was flat" at one time, or "The experts said the earth was the center of the solar system". Bad examples both.

What makes a "good scholar"? Examples?

Maggie

Carla O'Harris

May 6th, 2005, 08:48 AM

Maggie

May 6th, 2005, 09:47 AM

A good scholar does a REPRESENTATIVE survey of existing DISPUTE, and thus does JUSTICE to the DEBATES of the TRADITION. That is #1. THEN, additionally, the scholar describes each of these views AS THE ADHERENTS WOULD, and where the materials are obscure and thus difficult for a reader to find, quotes amply in order to present fully the viewpoint (even if in footnotes). Having quoted or paraphrased accurately, the scholar is then in a position to debate with these viewpoints and present her or his own view. At this point, readers will feel that the scholar has argued their case with great respect for the polyvocality of the tradition. This may seem a somewhat encyclopedic approach, but I do think it is the highest form of scholarship.

Okay, in other words, an author should present all POVs and theories on equal footing before indicating which one he or she considers valid and why. This is the same basis that creationists are using to force inclusion of creationism into public school biology textbooks. What's your opinion on that?

Maggie

Darkdale

May 6th, 2005, 11:56 AM

A good scholar does a REPRESENTATIVE survey of existing DISPUTE, and thus does JUSTICE to the DEBATES of the TRADITION. That is #1. THEN, additionally, the scholar describes each of these views AS THE ADHERENTS WOULD, and where the materials are obscure and thus difficult for a reader to find, quotes amply in order to present fully the viewpoint (even if in footnotes). Having quoted or paraphrased accurately, the scholar is then in a position to debate with these viewpoints and present her or his own view. At this point, readers will feel that the scholar has argued their case with great respect for the polyvocality of the tradition. This may seem a somewhat encyclopedic approach, but I do think it is the highest form of scholarship.

Actually, I'd take issue with that. A good scholar presents an arguement for their belief about what the truth is, listing all the evidence and supporting facts. Then, at the end, they consider the arguments against that theory and explain why the critics are wrong. It is not a scholars job to list all points of view and explore them in depth.

Silverfire Darkmoon

May 6th, 2005, 12:22 PM

Good Lord, why all this running around in circles? This is a lot like the time me and MoonDragon had that spat about Silver RavenWolf, no-one is going to admit the other has something right or wrong.
Hutton has given us a book that does more than any other to expolre what made Wicca, therefore we should be damned grateful for it. No-one else has ever done that. isn't that enough?

raven grimassi

May 6th, 2005, 12:24 PM

I even see the same example usually offered to discredit scholarship--"The experts said the earth was flat" at one time, or "The experts said the earth was the center of the solar system". Bad examples both.

I think they are good reminders that scholarly views are subject to the limitations of what understandings can be gained through what little we really know. The methodology of scholars is as limiting as it is productive. But we need a science and a standard, and the one we have is the best we have.

But, if they are confident, happy, content with--pick your adjective--with their own beliefs and their own scholarship, why is approval by those scholars they deride of any importance? What difference does it make that others believe them to be wrong? Such strong defense of their own scholarship and even stronger criticism of others leads me to believe that academic acceptance IS important to them. Or why bother?

From conversations that I have had, it is the divisiveness within our own community that creates the importance. They're not looking for scholarly approval, they are instead defending themselves against their own people within the Pagan/Craft community who use those scholarly views in an adverse manner against other Pagans and Craft people. So, it is not the acceptance of scholars that they desire, it is the acceptance of their brothers and sisters that they desire.

Was there any dissent? How "hardline" were the druids? Do we have any indication that the society adminstered by the druids was any more tolerant than our own? Were the "common folk" even allowed to express alternative views? Or would such dissenting views have been viewed as dangerous to the well being of their society?

I am afraid that people are people no matter what century we find them in. How is that the Romans were able to locate the strongholds of the Druids? They were not listed on the tourist maps. ;) The information came from the disgruntled locals. We know historically that the Romans used the divisiveness of the Celtic tribes against themselves, getting one tribe that hated another to aid the Romans. It is the classic divide and conquer theme, which was also used by others against the Aztecs, the American Indians, and so forth.

I have to admit that it's a bit odd to be "chatting" with you now. You and your Raven's Call and Patrick and Lew Percus gave me invaluable help and advice when I was just starting out quite some years ago now. :)

Ah, the good ol' days. ;) I think I can speak for everyone by saying that your decision to remain on the Path makes what we did in those days an honor to have been of service.

Best regards - Raven

Carla O'Harris

May 6th, 2005, 07:34 PM

Okay, in other words, an author should present all POVs and theories on equal footing before indicating which one he or she considers valid and why. This is the same basis that creationists are using to force inclusion of creationism into public school biology textbooks. What's your opinion on that?

Maggie

Well, this might open up a whole other thread, but ... I don't think the issue is strictly comparable, because I don't consider "public school" to be a tradition in the same way that Wicca or Judaism is. Given this argument, it would make more sense for creationist textbooks in Christian schools to list all of the points of view. I remember years ago when Pat Robertson came to my college and advocated in a faux-reasonable manner that creation be taught alongside evolution. I stood up and said, "That sounds wonderful! I assume you'll be teaching Hindu, Native American, African, Taoist creation alongside the Judaeochristian one," to which he replied, "Uhhhh, well, I wouldn't want to include any h-h-heathen ideas." The other issue in public school is that we're not dealing with a high enough level of the academy to get into intricate debates. If we were discussing a public college, perhaps, or a public graduate school, then it might be relevant actually to list these points of view. It would be fascinating and relevant. Having these pov's available would make formore interesting and imaginative scholarship. It also makes your argument stronger when you're familiar with the various views. And that to me is what a tradition is about -- knowing the different points of view people have. That's what makes it a tradition and not a monolith.

Now some may say that it is too exhaustive for a scholar to list every different POV, and that may be true ; but, we can at least ask that they fairly present the viewpoints of the differing Schools of thought and at least select some representative speakers for that School.

What I see frequently in scholarship is an unfairness towards previous generations of scholars, an attitude of "automatic obsoletism" that presumes -- usually presumes without arguing -- that those scholars and their positions are obsolete. Many times this presumption is based upon a presumption of some ultimate refuting having taken place when in fact nothing of the sort happens. As Kuhn has indicated, old views are often simply abandoned rather than actually fully refuted. They come to seem gauche. Other times a refutation of some kind has taken place, but too much weight has been put upon it, and it is quite possible to reopen the debate. Contemporary scholars presume the supremacy of their viewpoint. I see this up and down through Hutton's book, and Hutton has consistently refused to really engage the arguments, coming off with an attitude of "Well, every present scholar knows this, and if you don't, well, you're just ignorant" -- right, because we're supposed to have access to all these obscure and expensive scholastic journals -- instead of actually getting down in the dirt and argu