MacMorrighan
April 20th, 2007, 04:14 PM
Some Considerations on the British Resistance: Shamanism in Early Modern Witchcraft
In Emma Wilby's article, "British Shamanism: Shamanistic Vissionary Traditions in Early Modern British Witchcraft", in Circle Magazine , the scholar writes, "Eva Pocs claims that Central European magical activity 'aided and abetted by a helping spirit...corresponds to the criteria generally accepted for shamanism'-- Brtish historians have not taken seriously the idea of the familiar-encounter as a coherent visionary experience" [pp. 43]. Rather, according to Prof. Ronald Hutton's hostility towards the idea in the 2003 debate (http://www.vaccines.plus.com/Murray%20and%20the%20Professor.html) published in the British Pagan journal, [I]The Cauldron, I would qualify this position by noting that British scholars, for the most part, seem hostile towards the very notion that early modern Witchcraft belief contains within it any germ of endemic shamanistic belief (in other words, a very tangible pagan survival!). Even one of Hutton's primary consenting sources for his The Triumph opf the Moon-- one J. B, Russell-- admits that there is a clear pagan root at the heart of these practices and beliefs (see his A History of Witchcraft [second ed.]). Hence, does it not behoove us to acknowledge how utterly, and blatantly, extremist Ronald Hutton is with the material he claims to concern himself with (amongst his acolites and those American scholars pressured by his academic "ghost" in their writings), as opposed to the dozens of professors and professional scholars that portray history in a vastly more objective and even-handed manner? (The answer, of course, is a resounding YES!)
Hutton's continued hostility towards this general consensus amongst scholars throughout the whole of continental Europe (extending even to Asia, India, the Mediterannean and eastern Europe) is baffling, considering that one cosmogonic belief Hutton generally extrapolates as a feature from Siberian shamanistic belief and their ajacent religions, is one centered upon the multiplicity of the soul [see his Shamans: Siberian Spirituality and the Western Imagination (http://www.bytrentplus.co.uk/hutton00.html), 2001]. This parallels directly with evidence found through extent early modern European witchcraft belief as thoroughly noted by French Prof. of medieval literature and civilization, Claude Lecouteux, who teaches at the prestigious academic institution, The Sorbonne [see the English trans. of his academic text Witches, Fairies and Werewolves: Shapeshifters and Astral Doubles in the Middle Ages, 1992 and 2003]. Given this overwhelming ubiquitous evidence, one must wonder how long British scholars can continue to ignore this material without proving to be not only chauvenistic towards other academic school of thought or methodological protocols, but unfortunately quixotic (to be mild about it)! Indeed, this demonstrable evidence should have been apparent from the very beginning, and should have proven the weakness of Prof. Hutton's seemingly mandated argument (though, in reality, it's more of a claim that folks simply choose to view as an "argument", because he ha a PhD). Moreover, are we to, by inference, then accept that the whole of the (continental) European scholastic community is in error of the most grievous nature? (The answer, there, of course, should be a resounding NO!)
Furthermore, Prof. Hutton in an academically shameful polemic (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2386/is_1_111/ai_62685559) (it amounted to little-more than Hutton throwingf around his academic "weight" which is an apparently common tactic for dismisal amongst American and British scholars), for instance, attempts to blatantly undermine Prof. Carlo Ginzburg's important material (The Night Battles) by mischaracterizing it in the most incongruous of terms (grossly diminishing the textual evidence where, for example, full-blown trance-induced visionary experiences are merely degenerated to the status of typical "dreams"!); hence, he is able to empirically claim that "it proves nothing!" should one seek out Carlo's witch-cult as proof-posative for relatively pagan witch-cults that are remarkibly akin to Murray's ideal, as well as Leland's Aradia text! (Regardless of what Hutton may claim, none of it should be taken as evidence that the Murray thesis has collapsed along with all of its plausible variants; such would be specious reasoning!) Even Profs. JB Russell and the mendacious cynic Norman Cohn ruthlessly mischaracterized Ginzburg's findings! However, Prof. Lecouteux shows far more insight towards Ginzburg's much-maligned work, recalling that it was, he lamments, "[o]ne inquiry largely passed over in silence [that] should have made more of a stir than it did," because, he concludes " shook up ideas and rendered null and void many [early reductionist] conclusions [as per Hutton, [I]et. al. for instance]" [trans. Clare Frock, pp. 89].
In Emma Wilby's article, "British Shamanism: Shamanistic Vissionary Traditions in Early Modern British Witchcraft", in Circle Magazine , the scholar writes, "Eva Pocs claims that Central European magical activity 'aided and abetted by a helping spirit...corresponds to the criteria generally accepted for shamanism'-- Brtish historians have not taken seriously the idea of the familiar-encounter as a coherent visionary experience" [pp. 43]. Rather, according to Prof. Ronald Hutton's hostility towards the idea in the 2003 debate (http://www.vaccines.plus.com/Murray%20and%20the%20Professor.html) published in the British Pagan journal, [I]The Cauldron, I would qualify this position by noting that British scholars, for the most part, seem hostile towards the very notion that early modern Witchcraft belief contains within it any germ of endemic shamanistic belief (in other words, a very tangible pagan survival!). Even one of Hutton's primary consenting sources for his The Triumph opf the Moon-- one J. B, Russell-- admits that there is a clear pagan root at the heart of these practices and beliefs (see his A History of Witchcraft [second ed.]). Hence, does it not behoove us to acknowledge how utterly, and blatantly, extremist Ronald Hutton is with the material he claims to concern himself with (amongst his acolites and those American scholars pressured by his academic "ghost" in their writings), as opposed to the dozens of professors and professional scholars that portray history in a vastly more objective and even-handed manner? (The answer, of course, is a resounding YES!)
Hutton's continued hostility towards this general consensus amongst scholars throughout the whole of continental Europe (extending even to Asia, India, the Mediterannean and eastern Europe) is baffling, considering that one cosmogonic belief Hutton generally extrapolates as a feature from Siberian shamanistic belief and their ajacent religions, is one centered upon the multiplicity of the soul [see his Shamans: Siberian Spirituality and the Western Imagination (http://www.bytrentplus.co.uk/hutton00.html), 2001]. This parallels directly with evidence found through extent early modern European witchcraft belief as thoroughly noted by French Prof. of medieval literature and civilization, Claude Lecouteux, who teaches at the prestigious academic institution, The Sorbonne [see the English trans. of his academic text Witches, Fairies and Werewolves: Shapeshifters and Astral Doubles in the Middle Ages, 1992 and 2003]. Given this overwhelming ubiquitous evidence, one must wonder how long British scholars can continue to ignore this material without proving to be not only chauvenistic towards other academic school of thought or methodological protocols, but unfortunately quixotic (to be mild about it)! Indeed, this demonstrable evidence should have been apparent from the very beginning, and should have proven the weakness of Prof. Hutton's seemingly mandated argument (though, in reality, it's more of a claim that folks simply choose to view as an "argument", because he ha a PhD). Moreover, are we to, by inference, then accept that the whole of the (continental) European scholastic community is in error of the most grievous nature? (The answer, there, of course, should be a resounding NO!)
Furthermore, Prof. Hutton in an academically shameful polemic (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2386/is_1_111/ai_62685559) (it amounted to little-more than Hutton throwingf around his academic "weight" which is an apparently common tactic for dismisal amongst American and British scholars), for instance, attempts to blatantly undermine Prof. Carlo Ginzburg's important material (The Night Battles) by mischaracterizing it in the most incongruous of terms (grossly diminishing the textual evidence where, for example, full-blown trance-induced visionary experiences are merely degenerated to the status of typical "dreams"!); hence, he is able to empirically claim that "it proves nothing!" should one seek out Carlo's witch-cult as proof-posative for relatively pagan witch-cults that are remarkibly akin to Murray's ideal, as well as Leland's Aradia text! (Regardless of what Hutton may claim, none of it should be taken as evidence that the Murray thesis has collapsed along with all of its plausible variants; such would be specious reasoning!) Even Profs. JB Russell and the mendacious cynic Norman Cohn ruthlessly mischaracterized Ginzburg's findings! However, Prof. Lecouteux shows far more insight towards Ginzburg's much-maligned work, recalling that it was, he lamments, "[o]ne inquiry largely passed over in silence [that] should have made more of a stir than it did," because, he concludes " shook up ideas and rendered null and void many [early reductionist] conclusions [as per Hutton, [I]et. al. for instance]" [trans. Clare Frock, pp. 89].