Hutton and footnote

[Maggie]

Okay. Certain members here seem to be worried about a footnote in Hutton's Stations of the Sun. I asked an acquaintence of mine who corresponds with him if he'd heard of any problems. He hadn't. I wasted several hours on the Web looking for any mention of a dispute over the subject between Carey and Hutton. Couldn't find anything. So, I then conceived a fiendishly clever plan.

I wrote Dr. Hutton and asked.

He has a page and an email on the University of Bristol's website. I received a reply this morning.

According to Dr. Hutton himself he put the reference in the conclusion because a friend of his told him about Carey's work and he did not wish to do Dr. Carey an injustice. When nothing subsequently appeared on the subject he wrote Dr. Carey directly and asked for details. As he politely put it, "for whatever reason" Dr. Carey never answered. Dr. Hutton says that taught him "not to listen to friends in this fashion" again.

Perhaps the friend who is a graduate student of Dr. Carey's might be willing to find out why Dr. Carey never answered Dr. Hutton?

[David19]

Cool, it'll be interesting to see the response, and Hutton seems really polite too.

[Carla O'Harris]

Hutton is generally very polite.

[Maggie]

Cool, it'll be interesting to see the response, and Hutton seems really polite too.

That was the answer, David. He put the reference in because a friend of his had told him (Hutton) that Dr. Carey was writing a paper on the subject. When nothing was published after all Hutton wrote Carey and never received a reply. In his words, "for whatever reason" Dr. Carey never answered Hutton's query.

So, Hutton was told about by a friend that Carey was writing this paper, apparently was supposed to be published in a future issue of Eiru. Nothing ended up being published and Hutton got no answer to his question of Carey.

End of story. Hutton did not make it up, it says nothing about his scholarship in general, and this "story" should end.

[MacMorrighan]

Okay. Certain members here seem to be worried about a footnote in Hutton's Stations of the Sun. I asked an acquaintence of mine who corresponds with him if he'd heard of any problems. He hadn't. I wasted several hours on the Web looking for any mention of a dispute over the subject between Carey and Hutton. Couldn't find anything. So, I then conceived a fiendishly clever plan.

Boy, you're REALLY concerned about this,a ren't you?

It would be the first time one had shown, shall we say, a rather zealous desire to vinticate one's personal hero. Hey, we've ALL been THERE!

However, none of this should be taken as evidence that Hutton has never published anything in error, or despite the evidence. hell, did you know (according to one Dr. Morton Smith) that Scholars reject, on princible, all conjectures save their own? How insurrerably insedious! Such a stance really prevents one from relaying a balanced image to their readers.

Be that as it may, I was corresonding with another phenominally well-researched Pagan in "classical" matters of antiquity, and he had some choice things to say regarding Hutton's whoppers in ToTM. My buddy can list DOZENS of reputible scholars that paint a far different picture than Hutton presents or allows. However, you'll never heard of them in Hutton's writings, as he sually only advances the work of those scholars who agree with him. Indeed, much of this counter evidence clearly calls into question Hutton's primary thesis. Some of what my comrade says is this:


Borgeaud's book [The Cult of Pan In Ancient Greece] is awesome. It should also be the death nell for Ronald Hutton's credibility. Hutton of course snidely insists that the idea of Pan as a Great God is a delusional fantasy of fevered Romantic imaginations, and, more specifically, he hamfistedly proclaims that prior to the 18th century Pan was never seen as being in any way important.

It's too bad that Ronald Hutton has evidently never heard of either Pindar or Herodotus. Pindar of course had an epiphane of the Great Goddess (Cybele) in which he (Pindar) saw Pan as Her Consort. And Herodotus is of course the primary source for the story of how Pan saved the city of Athens from the Persians in the battle of Marathon - and as a result the Athenians revitalized Pan's cult (which had fallen into neglect).

Lynn Roller (sp?) has a book on Magna Mater which is also a good source of information on the relationship between Pan and Cybele (which closely resembles that between the Wiccan "God and Goddess").

Finally, the 3rd century novel "Daphnis and Chloe" by Longus (from Lesbos) provides a fascinating glimpse of Pan as depicted in the literature of classical Paganism. Pan is mentioned by name 50 times in this novel - and his relationship to the Nymphs, Eros, Hermes and Dionsysos is portrayed from a variety of angles.
In particular Hutton insists that the idea of Pan as consort to a Great Goddess is a wholly modern construction.

Hutton actually spends very little time on this - but it is absolutely crucial to his central thesis about the "true origins" of Wicca. Once it is understood that Pindar depicted Pan in just this way (as consort of Cybele, the Mother of the Gods) there is no longer any need to look further for the "origins" of Wiccan "duotheism" (falsely so called).

Speaking of the Golden Ass, another egregiousness committed by Hutton is his flippant dismissal of Apuleius (the author of the Metamorphoses - also known as the Golden Ass). Apuleius is nothing less than the single most important first hand witness that we have for the ancient worship of Isis. And what Apuleius describes is very similar to the modern conception of a Universal Great Goddess. Hutton simply asserts that Apuleius is "atypical" - and leaves it at that!

Anyone who takes Hutton seriously should actually take the trouble to read chapters 2 and 3 of "Triumph of the Moon" - in which he attempts to "prove" that the Wiccan ideas of a Great Goddess and Her Consort have no basis in ancient Paganism. What actual evidence does Hutton ever provide in these two chapters? None. All we get are assertions, nothing more.

Apuleius was not only an important figure during his day - but his writings continued to be very influential all throughout the Middle Ages. In addition to the Metamorphoses, he was also credited with the Latin translation of the Hermetic text called the Asklepius. And today he is considered one of the most important representatives of "Middle Platonism". The twelfth chapter of the Metamorphoses took on a life of its own during the Middle Ages and was known simply as the Isis Book. It's bad enough that Hutton is completely unaware of all of this - but what is much worse is that he obviously never bothered to do any research whatsoever on this vitally important topic.
Hutton paints the picture that paganism was effectively dead by the 6th. century, and died quietly, while being eagre to convert tio Christianity. However, it survived easily into the 8th. century CE., and those Pagans fought HARD for their faith and religion, too! Infact, Paganism was actively being surpressed during these centuries from 200 to 800 CE!


All of this, and more, directly counters much of Hutton's primary thesis. Now, this is not to say that history has not changed, but that this information and academia was easily available when Hutton was writing. Moreover, we Pagans need to seriously make an effort to find those authorities that pain a contrary picture to Hutton's, as an effort to keep ourselves informed, and to have a FAR MORE OBJECTIVE view of history than being fed to us (especially being that certain obvious authors only give us one side).


According to Dr. Hutton himself he put the reference in the conclusion because a friend of his told him about Carey's work and he did not wish to do Dr. Carey an injustice. When nothing subsequently appeared on the subject he wrote Dr. Carey directly and asked for details. As he politely put it, "for whatever reason" Dr. Carey never answered. Dr. Hutton says that taught him "not to listen to friends in this fashion" again.

Well, if he's so keen on rejecting what others say, in favour of his own conjectures, I don't understand why he listened to his friend in any way, at all! *shrugs* It certainly doesn't seem to fit his character as an author.


Perhaps the friend who is a graduate student of Dr. Carey's might be willing to find out why Dr. Carey never answered Dr. Hutton?

Perhaps the letter never arrived? Recently, I have had horrible luck in receiving mail this year!

[MacMorrighan]

Hutton did not make it up...

Ah, but he printed something that clearly was not true. So, yes, to be poedantic about the issue, he DID "make it up".


...it says nothing about his scholarship in general, and this "story" should end.

I argue that it does-- particularly in the gande scheme of things!

[Desert_Witch]

Ah, but he printed something that clearly was not true. So, yes, to be poedantic about the issue, he DID "make it up".



I argue that it does-- particularly in the gande scheme of things!


I agree with MacMorrigan here. Authors need to do their homework, and Hutton is no exception. Also, one has to ask oneself, if Hutton was this lazy once, then might he be equaly lazy elswhere in his work?

BB

DW

[Maggie]

Ah, but he printed something that clearly was not true. So, yes, to be poedantic about the issue, he DID "make it up".



I argue that it does-- particularly in the gande scheme of things!

I'm not the one spreading this story around the web, so I am not the one who's really exercised about this. It was something easily checkable--so I asked Dr. Hutton about it. It appears in his last chapter, in the summing up. He puts one sentence in, talking about a work in progress by another expert in the field. His footnote clearly states that it comes from a paper in the IHL, and that he did try to get the issue of Eriu that he was told this work would appear in. When I asked him he was very upfront about the fact that he was given this information by a friend. He did not "make it up." Youi are saying that he knew at the time that it was false and included it any way, KNOWING that it was false. That is patently not the case. He trusted a friend and that source let him down. As he said, he's learned better--and that book was published ten years ago, which meant he was writing it even earlier.

And it's interesting. The footnote which YOU are so exercised about is simply a comment that another researcher is working on a paper about a particular topic, a sentence he included as to "do justice" to Dr. Carey. He doesn't use it to support anything he says, he doesn't say anything about what Dr. Carey is thinking, simply saying that he is working on a paper as a courtesy. And, as it turns out, his friend was mistaken and Dr. Hutton admits the error up front.

I'm curious--do you hold ALL other authors to this standard of inerrancy, right down to footnotes? Errors like this have been known to occur in books other than Hutton's.

[MacMorrighan]

I agree with MacMorrigan here. Authors need to do their homework, and Hutton is no exception. Also, one has to ask oneself, if Hutton was this lazy once, then might he be equaly lazy elswhere in his work?

BB

DW

Very well put, I feel. In fact, this is the heart of the matter that I was trying to get at at that late hour. Especially when I have noted many, many, problems and errors that occur in Hutton's texts. Sadly, however, modern Pagans are all too eager to dism,iss them as an example of his so-called "academic rigour". How offensive! :ugh:

[MacMorrighan]

...and that he did try to get the issue of Eriu that he was told this work would appear in.[/qoute]

But, so far as I am aware, this issue was readily obtainable at the time of writing, and he only needed to check it out oif his local Unmiversity Library.

[QUOTE=Maggie;2958867]Youi are saying that he knew at the time that it was false and included it any way, KNOWING that it was false. That is patently not the case. He trusted a friend and that source let him down. As he said, he's learned better--and that book was published ten years ago, which meant he was writing it even earlier.

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that he published information that was false, yes. But, because he obtained it via hear-say, regardless of the trust-worthy nature of the source, it is uncharacteristic for him, because he otherwise would have dismissed it and remained absolutely silent about the article in his book, as though it didn't even exist! In a word, it paints him a a hypocrite!


I'm curious--do you hold ALL other authors to this standard of inerrancy, right down to footnotes? Errors like this have been known to occur in books other than Hutton's.

For the most part I do, especially when much within their texts can be deeply questioned, as well, as is the case with Hutton! Moreso when Pagans refuse to think for themselves when he writes on any give topic! This facet is absolutely astonishing!

[David19]

I just wanted to say something about saying Pan was the 'great god', and consort of 'the goddess', he may have been, but he may have only been 'Great God' to his worshippers or the initiates of Cybele's mysteries, to someoe else who worshipped Zeus or a pagan in the ancient Mesopotamia, Pan or Cybele wouldn't mean very little.

[Carla O'Harris]

Boy, you're REALLY concerned about this,a ren't you?

It would be the first time one had shown, shall we say, a rather zealous desire to vinticate one's personal hero. Hey, we've ALL been THERE!

However, none of this should be taken as evidence that Hutton has never published anything in error, or despite the evidence. hell, did you know (according to one Dr. Morton Smith) that Scholars reject, on princible, all conjectures save their own? How insurrerably insedious! Such a stance really prevents one from relaying a balanced image to their readers.

Be that as it may, I was corresonding with another phenominally well-researched Pagan in "classical" matters of antiquity, and he had some choice things to say regarding Hutton's whoppers in ToTM. My buddy can list DOZENS of reputible scholars that paint a far different picture than Hutton presents or allows. However, you'll never heard of them in Hutton's writings, as he sually only advances the work of those scholars who agree with him. Indeed, much of this counter evidence clearly calls into question Hutton's primary thesis. Some of what my comrade says is this:


Borgeaud's book [The Cult of Pan In Ancient Greece] is awesome. It should also be the death nell for Ronald Hutton's credibility. Hutton of course snidely insists that the idea of Pan as a Great God is a delusional fantasy of fevered Romantic imaginations, and, more specifically, he hamfistedly proclaims that prior to the 18th century Pan was never seen as being in any way important.

It's too bad that Ronald Hutton has evidently never heard of either Pindar or Herodotus. Pindar of course had an epiphane of the Great Goddess (Cybele) in which he (Pindar) saw Pan as Her Consort. And Herodotus is of course the primary source for the story of how Pan saved the city of Athens from the Persians in the battle of Marathon - and as a result the Athenians revitalized Pan's cult (which had fallen into neglect).

Lynn Roller (sp?) has a book on Magna Mater which is also a good source of information on the relationship between Pan and Cybele (which closely resembles that between the Wiccan "God and Goddess").

Finally, the 3rd century novel "Daphnis and Chloe" by Longus (from Lesbos) provides a fascinating glimpse of Pan as depicted in the literature of classical Paganism. Pan is mentioned by name 50 times in this novel - and his relationship to the Nymphs, Eros, Hermes and Dionsysos is portrayed from a variety of angles.
In particular Hutton insists that the idea of Pan as consort to a Great Goddess is a wholly modern construction.

Hutton actually spends very little time on this - but it is absolutely crucial to his central thesis about the "true origins" of Wicca. Once it is understood that Pindar depicted Pan in just this way (as consort of Cybele, the Mother of the Gods) there is no longer any need to look further for the "origins" of Wiccan "duotheism" (falsely so called).

Speaking of the Golden Ass, another egregiousness committed by Hutton is his flippant dismissal of Apuleius (the author of the Metamorphoses - also known as the Golden Ass). Apuleius is nothing less than the single most important first hand witness that we have for the ancient worship of Isis. And what Apuleius describes is very similar to the modern conception of a Universal Great Goddess. Hutton simply asserts that Apuleius is "atypical" - and leaves it at that!

Anyone who takes Hutton seriously should actually take the trouble to read chapters 2 and 3 of "Triumph of the Moon" - in which he attempts to "prove" that the Wiccan ideas of a Great Goddess and Her Consort have no basis in ancient Paganism. What actual evidence does Hutton ever provide in these two chapters? None. All we get are assertions, nothing more.

Apuleius was not only an important figure during his day - but his writings continued to be very influential all throughout the Middle Ages. In addition to the Metamorphoses, he was also credited with the Latin translation of the Hermetic text called the Asklepius. And today he is considered one of the most important representatives of "Middle Platonism". The twelfth chapter of the Metamorphoses took on a life of its own during the Middle Ages and was known simply as the Isis Book. It's bad enough that Hutton is completely unaware of all of this - but what is much worse is that he obviously never bothered to do any research whatsoever on this vitally important topic.
Hutton paints the picture that paganism was effectively dead by the 6th. century, and died quietly, while being eagre to convert tio Christianity. However, it survived easily into the 8th. century CE., and those Pagans fought HARD for their faith and religion, too! Infact, Paganism was actively being surpressed during these centuries from 200 to 800 CE!


All of this, and more, directly counters much of Hutton's primary thesis. Now, this is not to say that history has not changed, but that this information and academia was easily available when Hutton was writing. Moreover, we Pagans need to seriously make an effort to find those authorities that pain a contrary picture to Hutton's, as an effort to keep ourselves informed, and to have a FAR MORE OBJECTIVE view of history than being fed to us (especially being that certain obvious authors only give us one side).



Well, if he's so keen on rejecting what others say, in favour of his own conjectures, I don't understand why he listened to his friend in any way, at all! *shrugs* It certainly doesn't seem to fit his character as an author.



Perhaps the letter never arrived? Recently, I have had horrible luck in receiving mail this year!


Here, here!!! Excellent work, MacMorrighan, and points well taken. (Now if only the references you listed weren't over $50!!!)

[Carla O'Harris]

I just wanted to say something about saying Pan was the 'great god', and consort of 'the goddess', he may have been, but he may have only been 'Great God' to his worshippers or the initiates of Cybele's mysteries, to someoe else who worshipped Zeus or a pagan in the ancient Mesopotamia, Pan or Cybele wouldn't mean very little.


Good point, David, but Wicca originally would have been one cult amongst many.

Besides, there are some indications that the pantheons may very much have been a later IE superimposition upon an original Mother Goddess/Horned Consort figure that predated it.

[Carla O'Harris]

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Pindar

has,


Among the Greeks of his own and later times Pindar was pre-eminently distinguished for his piety towards the gods. He tells us that, " near to the vestibule " of his house (Pyth. iii. 78), choruses of maidens used to dance and sing by night in praise of the Mother of the Gods (Cybele) and Pan - deities peculiarly associated with the Phrygian music of the flute, in which other members of Pindar's family besides the poet himself are said to have excelled.

and


The reference in Pyth. iii. 78 to maidens worshipping Cybele and Pan near the poet's house is illustrated by the fact that one of these IIapOfvca invoked " Pan, lord of Arcadia, attendant of the Great Mother, watcher of her awful shrine " (fr. 72, Bergk 4, 95).

So not only did he write of this association, he and his family participated in actual night rituals of dancing and singing in praise of Cybele and Pan!! Anyone who cannot see a relationship (I'm not suggesting descent here but just relationship) between this and Wicca is effectively blind.


http://www.theoi.com/Titan/TitanisRheaTreasures.html

a fairly reliable and well-researched site, has,


PAN The goat-legged Arkadian god was a companion of the goddess in the Greek heartland.

and then gives us the exact source :


The mountain-dwelling, goat-footed god of the herds was a companion of Rhea in Arkadian myth.

"O Pan, that rulest over Arkadia, and art the warder of holy shrines … thou companion of the Megale Mater (Great Mother)." - Pindar, Maiden Songs Frag 95



and this,

http://www.egregores.org/


promises to be a very interesting site!

[Ben Gruagach]

I'm not sure we want to put too much emphasis into the claim that modern Wiccans are really just a continuation of the cult of Cybele, whether or not Pan is considered Her consort or not.

Male priests of Cybele (known as Galli) were required to castrate themselves. That sort of flies in the face of most of the fertility/sacred marriage emphasis of modern Wicca. And how many male Wiccans today would submit to castration as part of being Wiccan? (After all, Wicca is also a religion where all members are also priesthood -- therefore male Wiccans would have to be Galli...)

[MacMorrighan]

Here, here!!! Excellent work, MacMorrighan, and points well taken. (Now if only the references you listed weren't over $50!!!)

Oh....I've soooo wanted that book on Pan for AGES!!! Especially for a subsequent book I'll be writing! *drool* Many of the other titles my friend recommended were equally as expensive-- they were the texts that state (contrary to Hutton) that Paganism faught hard and was, in fact, actively oppressed by the Church.

It's also unfortunate that Hutton dismisses the author of The Golden Ass (I always forget how to spell his name unles I have it in front of me!) as "atypical" and inconsequential to his argument, etc., etc.! He clearly is a force to be reckoned with, and MUST be taken more seriously than Hutton allows his to be. *sigh*

[MacMorrighan]

I'm not sure we want to put too much emphasis into the claim that modern Wiccans are really just a continuation of the cult of Cybele, whether or not Pan is considered Her consort or not.

Neither am I. However, because Hutton brought it up in Triumph, using umbrella-statements, all of this mass of information sorely questions his primary thesis, particularly in chapters two and three, "Finding A Goddess" and "Finding A God", respectively.

[David19]

http://www.egregores.org/

Thanks for the link, and some of the stuff is very interesting, although, i'm not sure about this page,http://www.egregores.org/goddess_worship.html, while i know the Isis Cult was very popular in Rome, she wasn't the same as Aset (the actual Kemetic Isis), she's a different goddess.

I've had it explained to me by a Kemetic that by the time of the Romans, the actual worship of Aset had been forgotten.

Also, the site just seems to say Christians are 'the big bad', or that the world was 'perfect' before Christianity (and the site never mentions the persecutions of the Norse, Celts, Druids, Jews, early Christians, etc by the Romans).

I've also heard the Roman Isis is a combination of Aset and The One (the First Cause in Hellenic tradition).

[David19]

I just read that www.egregore.org site, and this article just really pissed me off, http://www.egregores.org/tolerance.html.

It basically has quotes like this:


The problem is that the rise of Christianity ushered in a new, dark era of religious intolerance

'pagan' times were just as intolerant of others, especially Roman 'pagan' times - or do all the Druids, Germanic (not German's as Germany didn't exist back then), Jews, and early Christians, etc not count.


There can be no Pagan scholarship without a thoroughgoing critique of Christianity and it's evil offspring: Secularism and Colonialism

So, to be a Pagan scholar, you have to say 'those Christians are the 'big bad'', 'they ruined everything', etc.

And, while colonialism is definantly bad, what the f*** is wrong with secularism?, i'd love for the author to tell me that - i'd much rather live in a world ruled by agnostics or atheists than anyone who believed in gods or god.


Many modern Pagan scholars seem to be obsessed with attacking the work of pioneering scholars like Margaret Murray, Jane Harrison, Robert Graves, Marija Gimbutas, Frances Yates and Mircea Eliade.

I didn't think Mircea Eliade was a Pagan, so correct me if i'm wrong, but i didn't think his works were criticized, i've seen a lot of people recommend him, and i want to get his shamanism books and others, as i've read the descriptions, they sound great.

But, Robert Graves wasn't a historian, he was a poet, and Margaret Murray, while i know a lot of people say she's an important historian, but she wrote in a specific time, new discoveries are made. I didn't think she was a respected scholar in the European tradition (Egypt on the other hand, i think, is a different matter, as i've heard she's still respected among Egyptologists today).

Although, i like the the bit about Hindu goddesses, http://www.egregores.org/goddess_worship.html, as Hinduism is a religion i'd like to learn a lot about.

Edit: I forgot to add, the article here, http://www.egregores.org/tolerance.html, and it includes this quote, from Emperor Julian:


"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth."
the Emperor Julian, from his Against the Galileans

To me, this is just intolerant bigotry, as IMO, by including a quote saying 'Christianity is a lie', they are not tolerant, and probably not polytheistic at all (polytheism, at least IMO, is a belief in all gods, not just your own, e.g. i believe in the Norse ones, but i don't worship them, etc).

[MacMorrighan]

I just read that www.egregore.org site, and this article just really pissed me off, http://www.egregores.org/tolerance.html.

'pagan' times were just as intolerant of others, especially Roman 'pagan' times - or do all the Druids, Germanic (not German's as Germany didn't exist back then), Jews, and early Christians, etc not count.

But, that's not the point of the site. It's essentially meant as a counter-balance against those scholars that claim (erroniously so) that paleo-paganas were somehow ready to convert easily to Christianity, and more than willing to ditch their beloved Gods the moment the rulin elite did so! For a scholar to claim such as empirical fact is spescious logic!!! Rather, ancient surviving paganism WAS oppressed by the Church, and this paganism DID FIGHT HARD to survive every step up the way...


...but i didn't think his works were criticized, i've seen a lot of people recommend him, and i want to get his shamanism books and others, as i've read the descriptions, they sound great.

Yes, they have been greatly criticized by the likes of Ronald Hutton because he "generalizes too much"-- this has recently become Hutton's new catch-phrase as a means by which to discredit a scholar in favour of his own opedantic model, as though Eliade's were inept and no longer of use or valuable.

However, according to a well educated Witch that I know, with her doctorate degree in psychology (she's a local Elder and Priestess), when I first bought Eliade's book from her shop, she confided in me that a scholar would likely not get published on the topic were they not to cite Eliade's book on the subject! Though, maybe this is just a belief amongst American scholars?

[QUOTE=David19;2960196]But, Robert Graves wasn't a historian, he was a poet, and Margaret Murray, while i know a lot of people say she's an important historian, but she wrote in a specific time, new discoveries are made. I didn't think she was a respected scholar in the European tradition (Egypt on the other hand, i think, is a different matter, as i've heard she's still respected among Egyptologists today).

Again, ther author is probably referring to the knee-jerk reaction of many Pagans against these authors, due to the writings of ccertain key scholars. As for Murray, it will be rmembered, regardless of what Hutton says, she was right on the money for the MOST part! In fact, it has been discovered that those scholars that are chiefly cited as destroying her credibility and the information she'd gathered as faulty, have been exposed as having lied about her! Unfortunately, when confronted with this information, scholars that have relied upon their say-so have refused to qualify their endorsement of Norman Cohn in ANY way! We would be good to remember that. Indeed, Hutton seems rather supportive of Cohn's use of ageism as a tactic for discrediting Murray, despite the fact that she was barely 60! Now, doesn't that put things in greater perspective?

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Indeed, Hutton seems rather supportive of Cohn's use of ageism as a tactic for discrediting Murray, despite the fact that she was barely 60!

I absolutely insist you give a citation for this, as I have NEVER seen anything said by Hutton himself in this regard. He references the fact that some of her contemporaries thought she was a crackpot who had the temerity to publish work at the age of ninety. That is all. Her age is of no consequence. The insanity of her witchcraft theories is.

And the day that [I]Robert Graves[I], of all people, is considered a reliable historical source by anyone of repute will be a sad, sad day indeed. Have you even READ the White Goddess? You are, then, aware of the fact that Graves himself later wrote that he didn't intend to write it? You are aware of the fact that the absolutely monstrous religion he describes, with its cannibalism, ritual mutilations, executions, sacrifices, and rampant sado-masochism has nothing to do with the religion that Gerald Gardner developed?

[Paracelsus]

B
However, according to a well educated Witch that I know, with her doctorate degree in psychology (she's a local Elder and Priestess), when I first bought Eliade's book from her shop, she confided in me that a scholar would likely not get published on the topic were they not to cite Eliade's book on the subject! Though, maybe this is just a belief amongst American scholars?


I doubt it - Eliade is, like Fraser and the rest of the armchair authorities, treated with great care by all academics - even American ones. He has some very interesting theoretial contributions - paritcularly in Myth of the Eternal Return, and Forge and the Crucible, but in terms of accurate reporting from an anthropological perspective - he's not that great. I think that Eliade is the kind of writer one reads very early on in the study of religions, and thinks "Wow, what a great bloke", but the more detailed accounts one reads, the more that his "academically distanced perspective" seems linked to a particular historical discourse - the one where the academy looked out over the vast plains of life, and commented at a distance; whereas these days it comes down from the mountain, and dirties it's fingers with methodolgically rigorous fieldwork.

[David19]

I doubt it - Eliade is, like Fraser and the rest of the armchair authorities, treated with great care by all academics - even American ones. He has some very interesting theoretial contributions - paritcularly in Myth of the Eternal Return, and Forge and the Crucible, but in terms of accurate reporting from an anthropological perspective - he's not that great. I think that Eliade is the kind of writer one reads very early on in the study of religions, and thinks "Wow, what a great bloke", but the more detailed accounts one reads, the more that his "academically distanced perspective" seems linked to a particular historical discourse - the one where the academy looked out over the vast plains of life, and commented at a distance; whereas these days it comes down from the mountain, and dirties it's fingers with methodolgically rigorous fieldwork.

So, would Eliade be someone who writes about shamanism and other religions, from more an academic, theoretical perspective, without ever doing field work, while the more detailed ones might be the people who've done field work (like living with a certain 'tribe', learning their beliefs, etc)?.

Not to get too offtopic, but is his book on shamanism good or are there better ones out there?.

[Ben Gruagach]

So, would Eliade be someone who writes about shamanism and other religions, from more an academic, theoretical perspective, without ever doing field work, while the more detailed ones might be the people who've done field work (like living with a certain 'tribe', learning their beliefs, etc)?.

Not to get too offtopic, but is his book on shamanism good or are there better ones out there?.

I'm not a shamanism expert, but a more recent scholarly book on the topic that you might want to hunt down in "Shamanism: A Reader" edited by Graham Harvey. It's a collection of essays on shamanism from a variety of scholars in the field today.

[Paracelsus]

Great suggestion Ben, might I also recommend Robert Wallis' Shamans/Neo-shamans, which has some very interesting things to say about the construction/deconstruction of shamanic identities in the contemporary west.

[MacMorrighan]

The insanity of her witchcraft theories is.

I strongly suggest you read the works of Prof. Eva Pocs, as well as Prof. Claude Lecauteux, for starters! It has been proven that Norman Cohn deliberately lied about Murray-- claiming she ommitted things that she didn't!-- yet Hutton, when shown this evidence, STILL unequivocally endorses Cohn! Doesn't that bother you? Byt supporting Hutton, you are also supporting the same lies as he.


And the day that [I]Robert Graves[I], of all people, is considered a reliable historical source by anyone of repute will be a sad, sad day indeed. Have you even READ the White Goddess? You are, then, aware of the fact that Graves himself later wrote that he didn't intend to write it? You are aware of the fact that the absolutely monstrous religion he describes, with its cannibalism, ritual mutilations, executions, sacrifices, and rampant sado-masochism has nothing to do with the religion that Gerald Gardner developed?

Hey, Si;ver, have you never read his The Greek Myths? This text is still widely used, and the most frequently cited, by MANY modern scholars TODAY! Indeed, not everyone confines Graves to the work of The White Goddess-- to do so, as most Wiccans unfortunately do, would be henously and unforgivibly mandacsious (and THAT'S mild!)!!! Indeed, it would be intellectual dishonesty when applied to his memory! Ever heard of throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Well, let's TRY not to do that with scholars that you may not agree with based soley on the say-so of some Brit. Okay? I'm sure you will be able to see some reason in this logic I have stated here.

Take Care, friend, and happy reading!

Wade MacMorrighan

[MacMorrighan]

A couple other note-worthy books on Shamanism that immediately leap to my head are:

The Quest for the Shaman -- Miranda Green
Jesus & the Shamanic Tradition of Same-Sex Love -- Will Roscoe [Histrian & Anthropologist]


Of course, I own many others, but I cannot recall them now (they're downstairs at the moment, boxed away).

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Way to dodge the important question, MacMorrighan - where's the citation for Hutton's ageism?

[David19]

A couple other note-worthy books on Shamanism that immediately leap to my head are:

The Quest for the Shaman -- Miranda Green
Jesus & the Shamanic Tradition of Same-Sex Love -- Will Roscoe [Histrian & Anthropologist]


Of course, I own many others, but I cannot recall them now (they're downstairs at the moment, boxed away).

Thanks for those 2 book recommendations

[MacMorrighan]

Way to dodge the important question, MacMorrighan - where's the citation for Hutton's ageism?

As I seem to recall (bearing in mind this was a LONG time ago) it was an indirect statement made in responce concerning some modern scholars in a book review that he had written years back.

However, by refusing to acknowledge Prof. Eva Pocs, as well as Claude Lecauteux, I argue that YOU are also evading a question that is FAR more important!!!

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

I will read Eva Pocs' work when it becomes available to me. Until then, I will not comment on her work.

So basically, a half-remembered indirect comment is enough for you to accuse an author of ageism. Wow. You make Z Budapest seem accurate by comparison.

I suspect that the comment in question is precisely the one I outlined above. I've just had a quick glance through 'Triumph' but it eludes me, however I am sure it's in there - the phrase delighted me to the extent it stuck in my mind :P

[MacMorrighan]

I will read Eva Pocs' work when it becomes available to me. Until then, I will not comment on her work.

Her work is widely available-- I don't know why you wouldn't have access to it! In fact, it's the death nell of British academe's reductionist school of thought! Honestly, I find British academe's "school" to be a high insult to my intelligence! So, when reading it, you really be required to reject the British school of thought-reformation that has probably been imposed on you.

I believe it highly unscrupulous for ANY British scholar to attempt to impose their methodology and preferred school of thought onto another country of scholars-- that simply smacks of racism (period)!

Hell, even some british scholars [eg, Emme Wilby] have come around and called British scholars that reject European scholars' arguments as entirely untenible-- and rightly so! But, amongst Brits, she seems to be in the minority. And, it's a TRAVISTY that Pagans in America, CANADA, and the UK have been fed unquestioningly British academe and place everything they read theough thgeir filter. POh, puh-leeze! They are full of ginormous pot-holes that only the most biased, naive, and purposefully ignorant continue to ignore.

Face it, Hutton has been clearly debunked! _twohorns_

Also, does it not infuriate you, and put British academe in perspective, when confronted with the knowledge that he, on principle, reject all conjecture ssave his own? If that isn't the definition of hypocracy, I don't know what is.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Face it, Hutton has been clearly debunked! _twohorns_
Also, does it not infuriate you, and put British academe in perspective, when confronted with the knowledge that he, on principle, reject all conjecture ssave his own? If that isn't the definition of hypocracy, I don't know what is.

Actually, I had firmly rejected all that Murrayite garbage before I read Hutton's work. He merely confirmed my suspicions, as had other, reliable and reputable authors.
People willfully clinging to ignorance is what infuriates me.

[Toby Stimpson]

As I seem to recall (bearing in mind this was a LONG time ago) it was an indirect statement made in responce concerning some modern scholars in a book review that he had written years back.

However, by refusing to acknowledge Prof. Eva Pocs, as well as Claude Lecauteux, I argue that YOU are also evading a question that is FAR more important!!!

I agree with Silver... this statement is barely a defense and a citation. A citation my friends is a direct quote, not a half remembered thought. Find in Hutton's own writings where he says that and then you have a case... do not resort to half remembering and act as though it is indomitable proof. The truth of the matter is, although Murrey was a very great egyptologist... her work on ancient Paganism is questionable. When ever I see a debate on Hutton or on Murrey all I see is very little factual based evidence except websites, and everyone knows can be false and wrong. Whenever anyone makes a stab at Hutton's work, all i see is irrational bickering... when I see a defense of Hutton's work all I see is those in disagreement taking apart the quote or simply ignoring it. This is not academia, and I find it ironic certain memebrs of this board claim to be so profficient in the sue of academics while at the same time looking down their noses at all established academics in lew of themselves, their own beliefs, or their own held hegemonies.

[David19]

I don't think Hutton 'speaks for most British scholars', as no 2 scholars are alike (take 2 of my lecturers on the Mass murder, both teach the same course yet will always disagree with each other!).

Personally, there seems to be anti-British scholar feelings running around, and i don't see why.

There's also a lot of British scholars (like Emma Wilby, etc) who write about witchcraft in the Middle Ages (and i'd like to get her book too), and there's also Jeffrey Russell, who writes about Medevial witchcraft too.

At least British witchcraft scholars don't have names like SRW, (or try and make their names sound Native American despite having no NA blood), or get published by Llewllyen (and before anyone says anything, they do have some good stuff, but a lot of BS too).

Sorry for getting off topic, but just wanted to add that.

[Paracelsus]

At least British witchcraft scholars don't have names like SRW, (or try and make their names sound Native American despite having no NA blood), or get published by Llewllyen (and before anyone says anything, they do have some good stuff, but a lot of BS too).
.

LOL - well put.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Personally, there seems to be anti-British scholar feelings running around, and i don't see why.

There aren't anti-British scholars, David, there are just two anti-British-scholar *people*, and they know full well who they are and so do we.
British people can come up with their own 'scholastic' garbage...why, look at Robert Graves, or Margaret Murray. But there are also wonderful people like Philip Hesselton, and Ronald Hutton, to balance the crackpots out.
Yes, you tend to have more Americans than anything else spewing ridiculous claptrap under the title of 'Wicca' - Z Budapest, the Great Satan, comes to mind - but let's all remember that if Gardner hadn't started making it up in the first place, they wouldn't be writing garbage about it....well, not about Wicca, anyway. But then, we wouldn't have a religion, so I'm going to hypocritically condone his inventions while I condemn the inventions of others.
Gardner is what counsellors call an 'enabler'.
But I digress.