LOL... With all due respect to prof. Hutton I've always wanted to be able to say that to someone, regardless of whom. ;o)
Anyway, Hutton apparently wrote an article by the name of: What Did Happen To Lindow Man? Why Britain's best known bog burial can no longer be used as evidence for human sacrifice on Friday, January 30, 2004 [www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/news...n.pdf ]. However, in a responce [www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/news...e.pdf ] to this article (on 7 February of the same year; I found these articles purely by accident, btw), one Dr. JD Hill, the curator for the British Museum's British and European Iron Age dept. responded in kind, stating that Hutton made a number of factual errors in his polemic, and was clearly 20 years behind the times and the latest research and evidence!
Hmmm...I wonder what latest research is being advanced (and by what scholars) concerning the theory that the bog bodies are likely evidence for Iron Age Sovereignty Rites?
Personally, I found Hill's responce very refreshing, and would like to thank him some how! After all, it still worries me that no professional scholars of whom I am aware have censured Hutton in any way for his methodological short-comings (that's being polite), or for his sentance structure that implies that he (Hutton) has an omniscient or exhaustive knowledge on a given subject, when, in fact he's simply wrong; or how he refuses to balance the equasion, if you will, by dismising without thought scholars that disagree with the British academic school of thought or institution [eg. Eva Pocs, among many others]; factual errors; how he is allowed to blatantly mischaracterize an author's thesis [eg, Prof. Carlo Ginzburg] as though what evidence Carlo presents isn't really what it means (in other words, he's misinterpreting Ginzburg); as well as refusing to ask some very impoirtant inquestions that should have been evident to him from the very beginning!
These are very important concerns of mine, and I believe that scholars should strive to acknowledge them, because left unchallenged they give a highly misleading impression.
Moreover, I must admit, I find it delightfully ironic that an Archaeologist is repremanding a Historian! After all, it was Hutton in his Stations of the Sun who made the pompous claim that (paraphrasing) Historians simply know more than Archaeologists, because the latter are not Historians!
Of course, I have many, many, reasons for not being able to wholey trust Prof. Hutton-- he was the primary promt that disillusioned me so deeply against Professional Historians (some of these are outlined below):
What bothers me so deeply is how if one dares to question Hutton (regardlessly of how small) they are thoughtlessly dismissed. Sometimes I am called a "History Revisionist" (a term I find particularly offensive), or have been told I'm simply biased, or don't know what I'm talking about, or even, that I'm just pissed because Hutton didn't tell me what I wanted to hear, and so I'm just pitching a fit and looking for any petty excuse to decry him, etc. *sigh* Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that Professional scholars can simply look the other way, and turn a blind eye, to the problems deeply engrained within his texts!
I must admit that the more I learn, the less seriously I am able to take British academia! Yet, British scholars severely come across as though they look down on other geographical branches of academia save theor own-- as though it's seriously them against he world! And, yes, I know that sounds extreme, but I tend to see such an attitude far too often to believe much ese.
Someone asked me, recently (as if it's some sort of sin), why I qualified my endorsement of Ronald Hutton so severely. I should have been more specific than what I was. So, I would like to devote this thread to that. What follows is merely the examples that I could think of, and tack down in his books, within the past few days. Also, I would like to refer the reader to these reviews by Max Dashu and Asphodel P. Long of his The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles; apparently, after Long's review was published, Ronald wrote the journal a letter informing them (according to the Ed., with whom I spoke) that he didn't know enough about the topic before writing about it: www.suppressedhistories.net/arti....html (though Hutton stated that Max Dashu "isn't a scholar of any sort!" in a private e-mail that was posted on one Pagan site; the author of said "site" refused to acknowledge Dashu's fair criticism of Hutton, dismissing her thoughtlessly as incorrect purely due to political motives) and www.asphodel-long.com/html/pa...ons.html
Unfortunately, one problem right off the bat is how Hutton is often thoughtlessly dismissive of other scholars that have an opposing view point, as though they're entirely inconsequential. As a result, Hutton's work is sorely in need of an objective stance; he needs to "balance the equasion", if you will... Indeed, he's far too keen on ONLY recommended and advancing those scholars which AGREE with him. It's a shame, however, that many rather gullible Pagans simply wave this through, under the banner of so-called "academic rigour"!!! (Honestly, I'm just a li'l offended by that!) Furthermore, it has come to my attention that Hutton really isn't in the habit of writing a histiography-- other-wise they'd surely be FAR more balanced and objective!-- but works of polemic (there's a major difference)! Here is a list, for ease-of-reference, of many quite egregious problems I have found with his writings:
1.) Ronald Hutton (The Stations of the Sun), in his minimalist zeal, claims that any such notion positing divination within the realms of Samhain were based upon "the flimsy nature" of the evidence gathered by two outstanding British scholars (John Rhys and Keating); evidence which is now believed to be inconsequential in Hutton's *opinion*. Rather, Hutton merely *thinks* that these two academics were in error when gathering the local folk-traditions throughout the British Aisles (an accusation he believes should have been apparent to them from the beginning) because the existence of purification rituals and divination "could be explained either by a connection to the most eerie of Christian feasts (All Saints) or by the fact that they ushered in the most dreaded of all the seasons." Unfortunately, he offers no documented evidence to support his thesis—- just an opinion portrayed as though it were empirical fact. (Where's the evidence, Ron!?!?!) For example, nowhere in this tome does he expressly find any documentation that the Christian feast of All Saints was in any way perceived of as "eerie"—- all we have is his lauded opinion. Nor does Prof. Hutton supply any documentation that portrays the genesis of British divination as one that results from this most "dreaded of all seasons" [Hutton 1996: 363]! Had he bothered to do so, I would have found that to be a far more convincing argument. Hutton's "opinion", here, is clearly unsubstantiated! Why he's putting it forth as fact is anyone guess. Actually, in retrospect, it looks like he's simply selling out, making a name for himself, by brown-nosing the skeptical rationalists! ("Skeptical rationalists" can be defined as those that believe if a thesis can be questioned—- regardless of how feeble their line of questioning or reasoning—- that their thesis is, by default, the correct thesis!) Be that as it may, Hutton apparently believes, privately, that a lack of evidence does not necessarily equate to evidence of non-existance. Gee, you wouldn't know it from his texts! But, I digress... What Hutton also failed to take into account is the endemic folkloric evidence of divination throughout the aisles. Often times divination involves the use of hazelnuts, and often for the purpose of love, rather than survival enquiries, despite how Hutton might paint it. Hazelnuts were sacred to the paleo-pagan Celts and are numerously found in medieval Irish mythological tracts. Furthermore, he seems to have an open disdane for other theories of any kind, yet...he's more than happy (and ready) to supplant his own! Hypocritic, n'est pas?
2.) What bothers me is how Hutton has, rather, engendered a sort of overt form of blind skepticism in modern Pagans where no proof is proof enough to them (perhaps cynicisim might be more apt a denotation)! Now, skepticism is a good thing! However, I don't believe that one should be blindly skeptical. Hutton exemplifies this beautifully when discussing Margaret Murray. As I understand it he basis the demollishion of her as a respectible authority on two primary scholars, Norman Cohn and Kieth Thomas. Well, Cohn is the most problematic of the bunch! Cohn often uses one's age as ammunition to dismiss and critique an author or idea-- and he does likewise to Murray, when he writes, "by the time she turned her attention to these matters she was nearly sixty.[!]" This is discriminatory, and Hutton should have seen this going on in Cohn's book Europe's Inner Deamons—- there's really no excuse in that he ignored it! (Hutton should be ashamed of indirectly endorsing this! In fact, if I recall, back in 1999 in a review of "A Coven Of Scholars" that he wrtote, he actually seems to endorse it when applied towards an unpopular scholar) Then Cohn grossly misrepresents Murray and hence asssassinates her character for generations to come! Cohn accused her of ommitting from the testimony of alledged "witches" anything that would have discredited her-- this is a mendacious lie on Cohn's part! Cohn also accuses her of failing to discuss the problematic nature of certain evidence, which is apparently not the case, for Murray *does* discuss the problematic nature of this "evidence"! Furthermore, if one goes back to compare and contrast what Cohn was saying of Murray with what Murray actually wrote, you would be stupified. In fact, she had apparently not ommitted these passages (as Cohn alleges), but considered them in detail! Indeed, if this is so, it would be practically scandelous that Hutton would be entirely unaware of this, or havng never checked, and just rather blindly relyed upon the "say-so" of another author. (Heck, it's academic suicide, IMO!!!) Now, this is not to say that Murray does not need extensive up-dating; she wrote in the 1930s, after all! But, the scholars that have alledgedly discredited her need to seriously rethink their position. Moreover, during the last week of October I decided to read a little more of my copy of Ginzburg's The Night Battles and read something equally astonishing: According to Prof. Ginzburg, the (now) late Prof. Cohn pretty much pulled the same stunt with Ginzburg's own work! Ginzburg says, "Equally unjustified on the other hand, in my opinion, is the assurance with which [Norman] Cohn, in a polemic with [J.B.] Russell (and also because of a misrepresentation of my book) concluded that, 'the experiences of the benandanti...were all trance experiences.'" [pp. xiv]. However, the late Prof. Cohn would have dismissed this all as illusory and, hence, inconsequential without a second thought! (Hutton himself similarly mischaracterizes Ginzburg's book, albeit more egregiously, as though if he repeats something often enough it'll become fact!) I must admit that I find this pattern deeply disturbing. After all, Hutton's certainly dismissed scholars with whom he fundamentally disagreed for pulling the same crap as Normal Cohn did (even for pulling much less than Cohn and others!). I also find it hard to believe that Hutton could have, in good consciousness, been ignorant of these scholastic failings... That is an unfortunate mistake... Hutton seriously needs to rescind, or at the VERY least, qualify his endorsement of Norman Cohn as a scholar! However, he blatantly refused to do this, even as early as a 2003 issue of [The Cauldron (a British Pagan Journal), despite this evidence. It simply makes Hutton look biased, I'm afraid, and a rather poor scholar, to boot. Honestly, as will be seen again, and again, I have noticed a marked sanctamonious attitude in Hutton's writings—- the rules he applies to others, he does not often apply to himself. A friend of mine that's getting his PhD quipped it to me this way, "Hutton plays fast and loose with the rules."
Heck, Coh lists some very hard to believe reasons for dismissing some entirely uncoerced witchcraft trials! One man was cassually questioned by the authorities, for being what was known as a "Free Spirit", because they were known to practice both male and female homosexuality as they saw the refusal of such desires to be the only "sin". Well, along comes Norman Cohn that completely, without thought, dismissed this account, because the individual was apparently, to him (bearing in mind the man's been dead for centuries, and Cohn has no degree in Psychology!), a "paranoid megalomaniac", "schizophrenic", or "nihilistic"!
No scholars seemed to question Cohn's thinking in *any* way! These seem awefully far-fetched "excuses" for dismissing evidence, to me. I mean c'mon, who's he trying to bull shit!!! In fact, another historian simply dismisses this Medieval individual as "psychopathic"! I, for one, have never seen such abhorrant methodology in all my life, especially when advanced as so-called "academia"!
Refuting other textual documentation that would have refuted Cohn's main thesis (that there were no witches, nor any sense of paleo-pagan "survival") Cohn accuses a few women that freely admitted to attending a sabbat and of night travel of being sinile, when he says of them that this is "something that has hitherto happened in the minds of silly old women." This is not only ageist (his distinctive trade mark), but sexist!
Sadly, Cohn's lies are still repeated by Hutton and other British scholars as though they are empirical facts!
3.) The Stations of the Sun: In a footnote for Chapter 40, Hutton claims empirically of Celticist Dr. John Carey, that he has been yielding astonishing results about paleo-pagan Samhain beliefs and practices from a paper he delivered at The Institute of Historical Research, as well as in an issue of the academic Journal Eriu, which he was not able to acquire. Despite Hutton's claim, according to the above-mentioned friend of mine which has as his academic advisor, Prof. Carey—- not only did the article at hand not deal with Samhain in any significant way, but Carey has never set foot onto "that learned Institution" [ie, The Institute of Historical Research]! (Carey's still curious about why Hutton made this claim.)
4.) In Pagan Religions, Ronald says, "...Odin sacrifices himself to himself, and so gains arcane wisdon. It is one of the most haunting passages in Norse literature, in which readers can at least feel close at least to the inner world of norther European paganism. Or can they? Can it be that the entire episode is the Crucifixion translated into Scandinavian myth? Christ and Odin are both hanged upon a tree (the latter being the common medieval term for a scaffold, applied very often to the cross). Both are pierced by spears, thirst, cry out and are resurrected with infinately greater glory (Odin after nine days, Christ after three). All this is surely too much to be coincidental, and although present-day scholars are divided over whether it is a Chrstian poem or not, it seems beyond question that its form was heavily influenced by Christianity. So, after all, it seems to tell us little about the nature of the older religions of Scandinavia" [pp. 296-7; 1991]. However, rather hypocritically, if you ask me, Hutton bases his conclusions only on the similarities, rather than acknowledging their fundamental differences-- an offense he levied upon such "poor" scholars as Frazer, for example! After all, had any other researcher claimed that the similarities between Osiris, Adonis, Dummuzi, etc. were the most likely authentic anecedants to the Christ myth (because they were obviously "too much to be coincidental") you can be sure that he would have stomped them into the ground with scorn! Indeed, Hutton almost seems too eager to casually default to a Christian explaination—- and it does often appear that Hutton has shifted the burdon of proof (see what I wrote of "skeptic rationalists, above). It is also interesting to note that the Catholic Church has, astonishingly, made many Encyclopedia publishers alter texts that do not portray them in anything but a positive light! But, I digress... Of course, at first glance, it sounds amazingly convincing, for those that don't know much about shamanism (or any topic with which Hutton concerns himself—- he appears to may an iron-clad concincing case to those that don't know any betetr), or even Indo-European studies (something Hutton never brings into play throughout this specific text), etc.! However, I have to wonder if, at this point, Hutton was familiar the works of Mircea Eliade (particularly his master-work, Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstacy—- a book he later treats as flawed and inconsequential in future writings)? So many contemporary-early, as well as modern (recent) scholars seem to go on about Heathenism being drenched in a various form of shamanism—- yet, this is all but denied in Hutton's book dealing with the subject. One wonders why this corpus of academia is being ignored? To briefly excerpt Davidson Gods & Myths of the Viking Age: "It was thought at one time that this image of the suffering god hanging from the tree must have been derived from the Christian Crucifixion. But, despite certain resemblences, it would seem that here we have something whose roots go deep into heathen thought, and which is no late copy, conscious or unconscious, of the central mystery of the Christian faith. By hanging on a tree, Odin is not sharing in the suffering of the world or saving men from death, but he is there to win the secrets of the runes..." [pp. 144; 1964]. She also goes on to relate that a variety of shamans are "made" by climbing the World Tree (or axis muni), which is a strong "northern" motif. While, other shamanic parallels are also noted: Like the shamans of the Mongols, both they and Odin tethered their respective horses to their percieved "World Trees". This scene is also clearly one in which Odinn is being "sacrificed" in the manner pre-dating the Viking age. For example—- this pre-viking practice entailed that prisoners/sacrifices be hung onto trees which was continued clear up until the 10th. century at Uppsala. I also believe that there may be an echo between Frejya teaching Odinn Her especial Magick, and the Yakut "Bird Mother of Prey" who carries off the prospective shaman to learn his abilities to "shamanize". Indeed, if we accept that this is actually an axis mundi (as Hutton seems hesitant to do, well...actually refusing to acknowledge), than we can clearly see the death and rebirth theme embodied in the psychological transformation of "Authentic"/"Spontanious Initiation"! Davidson also states that Odinn is depicted hanging from a tree in an early Swedish rock art—- though, of what date, I have no idea. Would it be fascinating to find this out? Abso-freakin'-lutely! This is one fascinating claim that I would, personally, love to research! But, unfortunately, in this particular text, Davidson did not relate any information about this stone with which one may use to find further information concerning it. Too bad... But, to back-track slightly, because Odinn is undergoing this horrific experience, I would definately be willing to assert that it is an Initiation experience, due to the fact that He is acquiring a special form of knowledge embodied in a very masculine form of old Norse Magick, known as galdr, which is respectively idetified with the casting of runes. The shamanistic extent by which Odinn is certainly identified is noted in a great many prose tales in which the God appears. Another VERY important question that Hutton should address—- otherwise, I think he's making some rather grand methodological leaps!—- is if this medieval term for a cross/scaffold is found in Germany/Scandinavia; or if it's only found in English/British areas (of which he is, generally, a scholar)? Ater all, if it doesn't appear in Germany or Scandinavia, than Hutton's reductionist theory—- a school of thought that is now rather untenible—- would be impossible to accept! Something else leaps to mind that Hutton also seems to have glossed over: the Christ was NOT "hanged" on a tree; he was nailed to a cross and crucified! Now, Odinn, however—- he WAS literalled "hanged" from a tree. They apparently, so far as I will advance, two completely differenbt modes of dying/death! And, still, I remain skeptical of Hutton's beliefs concerning the World Tree upon which Odinn is hung as being code-word for the cross, unless he could demonstrate that it was similarly known by such language in Germany/Scandinavia when, and especially WHERE, this particular poem was WRITTEN. Now, to my knowledge, he didn't do this—- we're merely supposed to accept him at his word. My own opinions to the side, according to a friend of mine with Asatruar connections, Hutton is apparently 150 years behind the times. "The idea that the Norse myths were substantially affected by either Christianity or Classical Learning was argued by Sophius Bugge. In a series of famous debates with Viktor Rydberg, Bugge's position was defeated, and Rydberg was considered to have fairly won the debates. Rydberg was able to demonstrate the strong Indo-European base to the Germanic myths" [pers. comm.]
5.) Hutton says, again, in Pagan Religions: "None of these images ['Green Man' carvings] could have been a beloved pagan deity, placed in churches by popular demand. The context of this idea was destroyed with the collapse of the Murray thesis, but like that thesis it could hardly have been argued at all by anybody with a real knowledge of the Middle Ages. No churchmen across the entire span of the period described them as such. St. Bernard, in a passage most accessibly printed by Sheridan and Ross, did inveigh against the burgeoning fashion for Romanesque at the beginning of the twelfth century; but his invective does not in fact prove the point suggested by these authors, for he condemned the images as grotesque, silly and expensive, not as pagan. There is abundant evidence, mostly from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, for the sort of people who paid the masons and comissioned the carvings. Occassionally the whole parish did so, but much more often those responsible were churchmen (above all bishops and abbots), landowners and wealthy merchants. The central point in The Witch Cult in Western Europe was that ordinary people remained adherants to the 'Old Religion' while the ruling class was Christian. And it was that class that determined how churches were decorated. The Wild Man, Sheela-na-Gig and Green Man were all products of that tremendous upswelling of of medieval culture which has been called the Twelfth-Century Renaissance. And like the more famous later Renaissance it ws a Christian movement, even though it drew upon ancient ideas and images" [pp. 316]. However, Medievalist Samantha Riches, in her monograph St. George [Sutton, 2000] argues the following point: "The haunting image of the 'Green Man'-- the foliate face, redolent of the natural world, which sits so uneasily in Christian churches-- has been identified as a pre-Christian form of St. George. It acts as a reminder of his role as an icon of natural fertility; in fact, 'Green George' is a name sometimes given to this image, which may act as a symbol of the return of spring after the temporary triumph of winter. An interesting echo of this aspect of St, George is found in an Islamic analogue known as 'Al khidr', 'Al Khadir', 'El Khudr', 'Khizr' or 'Jiryis Baqiya'. This figure is particularly associated with the area around Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. He is also recognized by Jews under the name 'Eliyahu ha Navi', who is considered to be a special guardian of Israel, and by local Christians as 'Mar Jiryis'; much of the rebuilt church over the shrine at Lydda was converted to a mosque, and it seems that the tomb was positioned squarely between the two sections of the building, and was thus available to both Christian and Moslem devotees. The various names applied to this holy character equate to terms such as 'Living One', 'the Green One' and 'the Ever Green One'; he is thought to derives from the Greek sea god Glaucos, whose name means 'the Blue One' or 'the Green One', a fisherman who achieved immortality, and hence the status of a god, after eating a seashore herb that he had noticed restored his fish to life. Utnapishtim, a charachter in the Gilgimesh epic, attained immortality in a remarkibly similar way, and this parallel may indicate another influence.
"Al Khidr (and his alternative appelations) is reputed to have found the Fountain of Youth, or the Well of Life, which is said to be located near the confluence of the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. Drinking from the fountain confers immortality, and it is claimed that Al Khidr has been repeatedly killed and resurrected; one story involves the martyrdom at the behest of a pagan king. Some traditions state that Al Khidr bathed three times in the Well of Life: in consequence, his skin and all his apparel turned entirely green, and he leaves green foot prints wherever he goes. [...]" [pp. 33] Not only would it appear that we have an image of a paleo-pagan Deity from Indo-European consequence, but...Hutton appears to be angaging in intimidation tactics. According to another friend of mine, scholars all over the place—- though, seemingly more so in the US and UK—- practice intimidating other academics from voicing a difference in scholastic opinion (usually that of the minority). Stating that "no one with a real knowledge of the Medieval period" would say such-and-such is clearly intimidating! Indeed, this is often why scholars cannot follow protocol and admit that there are reputible views that differ from their own, because there is a large tactic of suppression taking place.
6.) In Triumph of the Moon I found this interesting tidbit, that never seemed to add-up. Basically, Hutton seems to be claiming that there's no evidence for the iconography of The Devil having stemmed from paleo-pagan images from other Deities: "The half-animal nature of the horned god, after all, gave him a much more obvious parallel in Christian mythology than the figure of Jesus, and one absolutely opposed. There is here, indeed, a fascinating possibility which must be left open, because at present we appear to lack a propper study of images of the Devil in modern culture, to complement a large amount of first-rate scholarship upon those in ancient and medieval times. Between 1100 and 1700, both artistic representations and confessions extracted from alleged witches certainly portray Satan at times as half-goat, and often with horns. More often, however, the horns are those of a bull, and his most common characteristics are clawed feet, long ears, and wings (or a bat or a dragon). He is also featured combined with a wide range of other animals, dogs and snakes being the most common, or a a black, or black-clothed, man. It does seem as if the standard modern conception of the Devil as a being with cloven hooves, goat's horns and pointed beard is a ninteenth-century creation, representing a growing Christian reaction towards the importance of Pan as an alternative focus for the literary imagination." [pp. 46]. Yet, in J.B. Russell's 1977 monograph, The Devil (a scholar with whom Hutton is certainly familiar), we find the following statement in numerous transmutations: "The goat form of the Devil derives primarily from the image of Pan. From such theriomorphic ancestors the Devil inherited his claws, cloven hooves, hairiness, huge phallus, wings, horns, and tail" [pp. 254]. Hence, it seems to me that Huttons is severely down-playing this "transferrence", if you will.
7.) Hutton, unfortunatelty, is rather thoughtlessly dismissive of Hungarian Prof., Eva Pocs. In her lit.—- as well as the majority view amongst European scholars—- (from reading Hutton, however, it almost seems like it's the British scholars against the world!), she has found a distinct shamanistic antacedent in Medieval witchcraft belief. She investigated over 2000 records and documents, trials and testimonies from the time (the largest in recent history) to come to this conclusion! In fact, the vast majority of these documents would not be available to the Enghlish-speaker were it not for Prof. Pocs. In a PROPER historiography, Hutton should have at LEAST made mention that most scholars in Europe believe she does, and naming those scholars that are spear-heading this popular European thesis. Yet, such a converse thesis is "conveniently" ignored in Hutton's lit., as though such a disagreeing thesis from any scholar did not exist! However, (finally) in responce to it, Hutton only engages in pure *pedantry* in that 2003 ed. of The Cauldron. In fact, it takes him so long to respond to the mention of Pocs that one wonder's if he'd even read her lit. or merely taken the say-so of another collegue. Rather, Hutton entirely dismisses Pocs. as inconsequential because, "like most British scholars" he *believes* she uses the word "shamanistic" incorrectly—- he believes it can *only* be applied to the tribal spiritual practices of the Arctic north, such as Siberia, never mind that her use of the term is only a freaking similie rather than a blatant metaphore of any sort! Am I the only one that finds this shocking and ill-educated on Hutton's part? Hutton seems, at least to me, to be scraping for any reason to reject a scholar or thesis! I, personally, find that *highly* insulting to my intelligence! Though, most of Hutton's dismissals I find highly insulting to my intelligence, for that matter.
8.) And, finally, a couple other points that really seemed to come to the surface this week, because they bothered me so desperately (I happened to by a new book last weekend by Peter Beresford Ellis that supplied a lot of tested-and-true evidence to the contrary; it's what brought this particular facet to mind, I believe): "...it may be seen already that there is a strong possibility that the whole concept of the Tuatha de Danaan was invented by storytellers, perhaps working in the early Christian era and influenced by the Graeco-Roman myths.... Goddesses rarely feature in the Irish literature as maternal or nurturing, being more often aggressive and vorascious in their sexuality and bloodlust. Whether they represented role models for self-assertive Celtic women, or the fantasies of pagan Celtic male warriors, or the nightmares of the Christian monks who wrote the stories, is an open questiion" [pp.152]. While on page 296 pf The Pagan Religions Hutton further claims, "It is very likely that when writing of the Tuatha de Danaan, the Irish were not recording something in which their ancestors believed but fitting old deities into a structure inspired by the Greek pantheon." He even makes the following claim back on page 152, "...there is no trace in the Irish or Welsh literature of any deity associated with the sun (or moon)." Well, what pf Graine(sp?), whose name means "Sun"? Etymologically, The Daghdha even seems certainly associated with the Sun, when many of his epithets are taken into account, as well, according to Dr. Daithi O hOgain. So, I must wonder what he is denoting as "evidence", and what has so convinced him? Hutton certainly doesn't say, and I believe he *should* have... I certainly would be fascinated in the reasons! But, I digress... Early Hutton seems to be claiming, in essence, is that what insular narrative literature we have on record [eg, The Tain] is purely a case of the mediaval Irish monks re-telling Greek myths! Whereas, Ellis states that several scholars are firm in their acknowledgement that insular narrative literature contains certain direct parallels to Indic/Hindu religion, culture and mythology...not just through linguistics. Now, Ellis has said something similar to this before, such as in his book The Druids, but it was confined seemingly to Celtic culture and linguistics. Here, he is far more forceful and applies it, also, to mythology, etc.! According to Ellis' The World of the Ancient Celts, Celticist Myles Dillon made this statement around 1977; there are scholars that have found similar seemingly-direct parallels through inscriptions, that only seem to reflect Hindu mythological themes, etc. Also, concerning the sexuality of the Celtic Goddesses, he doesn't seem very well versed in the Celtic Goddess as Sovereign-Goddess and Land-Goddess, which can explain such occurances, rather than male warrior fantasies, or Christian nightmares! In fact, amongs Celticists, this theory is as old as about the middle of the 20th century. *sigh* Looks like you're way behind the times, Ron!
Also of interest, an Alexandiran from New Zealand I've located has been tracking down and reading all of Hutton's sources in his Triumph Of The Moon, and found gross mischaracterization, as he relates two examples:
"1.) Hutton paints Leland as a crank and a forger, claiming that Aradia (Herodias) is clearly a figure from Christian not pagan theology and that no other Italian folklorist has found evidence for the Vangel. At this critical point in assassinating Leland's character, he neglects to mention that the eminent Italian historian Carlo Ginzburg famously identified the Benandanti, a cult with more than passing resemblance to the beliefs Leland recorded. Ginzburg also clearly demonstrated the non-Christian origin of the name Herodias ("Hera-Diana", which was normalised by the Church to "Herodias"). Despite Hutton purporting to critique Ginzburg's work elsewhere in TotM, he is either unaware of the main contents of Ginzburg's work, or he purposely ignores it. Other, more detailed scholarly analyses of Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches since have arrived at much more balanced conclusions (see the article). (Note that I'm not claiming there is a link between the Benandanti and Leland's strega, just that Hutton has misrepresented the facts.)
"2.) One of Hutton's most pivotal claims in TotM is that modern pagan witchcraft cannot be historically-based, because there was no witchcraft, or even any form of pagan religion on which witchcraft could be based, still existing by the early modern era. Apparently not a single person persecuted was a practitioner of a pagan religion. His main support of this is simply citing seven of his creme-de-la-creme of modern scholars, with very little supporting discussion. Some of these are in foreign language, but of those in English, at least two directly contradict Hutton, freely talking about the influences of old pagan religious practices. A particularly juicy chapter is in the cited book by Monter (I think it was Monter, not Midelfort, I don't have any of this in front of me), about white witchcraft, which evaluates the beliefs of witches in France and England, and describes how the "green devils" in the woods were probably old pagan gods and the saints' shrines to which ill people were sent were probably actually dedicated to old pagan gods with a Christian veneer. Of the other books he cites (that are in a language I can read) none make the claim that Hutton does. They demonstrate that most accused "witches" were normal Christians, but they certainly don't go as far as saying "not a single person accused...". A moderate familiarity with the current academic work on the witch-trial period actually reveals Hutton's position as extreme and atypical. (Note that this is not support for a widespread organised witch-cult in Europe, such as Margaret Murray proposed, just another instance of extreme oversimplification and misrepresentation of other authors.)
"These are two examples of extreme over-generalisation and oversimplification, a lack of balance, a bias or a POV if you will. I can't comment on Hutton's motives, but I've found similar fallacies and misrepresentations scattered through his work. Dashu, despite being labelled as a "feminist", has so far seemed remarkably balanced, and is, as far as I have been able to ascertain, solidly grounded in fact."
But, what I would REALLY like to know is why scholars have failed to censure Hutton, as though they're afraid of doing so, for fear of tarnishing their "reputations"! Where is the "check-and-balance" system? Of course, I could surely find further errors, if I went back to re-read every page he's ever written cover-to-cover! There are likely even those that I have forgotten over the eyars, such as this gem that comes to mind:
According to Hutton, in The Pagan Religions, the Gardnerian/Alexandrian (of course, he's citing Janet & Stewart Farrar) cocept of the Goddess cannot be attributated to paleo-paganism in any way—- but it stems soley from Zoroastrian, and by extension to Christianity. This is simply incorrect information and proves that he knows nothing about Zoroastrianism! Rather, Zoroastrianism deals with a seperate and distinct God of Light pitted against a seperate and distinct God of Evil! This is simply not found within the Thealogy of modern Pagan Witchcraft! Hence, Hutton is attempting to complicate Neo-Pagan religious thought more than it is; he is seperating a single Goddess into two, in essence. This simply shows his lack of understanding—- strange, however, given that he was a Gardnerian when writign this text! He even dedicated it to the Clan of the Oak—- albeit he qualified it with a blatant lie. Hutton wrote in the preface that he was accepted into this Clan, and many opther Groups, because he was a professional Historian! However, according t these groups that have since spoken out about the claim, Hutton was allowed into their practices because he was a vouched-for Gardnerian Witch! This is, yet, another example of his mendacity, I fear.
Okay, rant mode off... ;o)
Happy Holidays,
Wade
myspace.com/MacMorrighan
MacMorrigaine@AIM.Com
Anyway, Hutton apparently wrote an article by the name of: What Did Happen To Lindow Man? Why Britain's best known bog burial can no longer be used as evidence for human sacrifice on Friday, January 30, 2004 [www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/news...n.pdf ]. However, in a responce [www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/news...e.pdf ] to this article (on 7 February of the same year; I found these articles purely by accident, btw), one Dr. JD Hill, the curator for the British Museum's British and European Iron Age dept. responded in kind, stating that Hutton made a number of factual errors in his polemic, and was clearly 20 years behind the times and the latest research and evidence!
Hmmm...I wonder what latest research is being advanced (and by what scholars) concerning the theory that the bog bodies are likely evidence for Iron Age Sovereignty Rites?
Personally, I found Hill's responce very refreshing, and would like to thank him some how! After all, it still worries me that no professional scholars of whom I am aware have censured Hutton in any way for his methodological short-comings (that's being polite), or for his sentance structure that implies that he (Hutton) has an omniscient or exhaustive knowledge on a given subject, when, in fact he's simply wrong; or how he refuses to balance the equasion, if you will, by dismising without thought scholars that disagree with the British academic school of thought or institution [eg. Eva Pocs, among many others]; factual errors; how he is allowed to blatantly mischaracterize an author's thesis [eg, Prof. Carlo Ginzburg] as though what evidence Carlo presents isn't really what it means (in other words, he's misinterpreting Ginzburg); as well as refusing to ask some very impoirtant inquestions that should have been evident to him from the very beginning!
These are very important concerns of mine, and I believe that scholars should strive to acknowledge them, because left unchallenged they give a highly misleading impression.
Moreover, I must admit, I find it delightfully ironic that an Archaeologist is repremanding a Historian! After all, it was Hutton in his Stations of the Sun who made the pompous claim that (paraphrasing) Historians simply know more than Archaeologists, because the latter are not Historians!
Of course, I have many, many, reasons for not being able to wholey trust Prof. Hutton-- he was the primary promt that disillusioned me so deeply against Professional Historians (some of these are outlined below):
What bothers me so deeply is how if one dares to question Hutton (regardlessly of how small) they are thoughtlessly dismissed. Sometimes I am called a "History Revisionist" (a term I find particularly offensive), or have been told I'm simply biased, or don't know what I'm talking about, or even, that I'm just pissed because Hutton didn't tell me what I wanted to hear, and so I'm just pitching a fit and looking for any petty excuse to decry him, etc. *sigh* Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that Professional scholars can simply look the other way, and turn a blind eye, to the problems deeply engrained within his texts!
I must admit that the more I learn, the less seriously I am able to take British academia! Yet, British scholars severely come across as though they look down on other geographical branches of academia save theor own-- as though it's seriously them against he world! And, yes, I know that sounds extreme, but I tend to see such an attitude far too often to believe much ese.
Someone asked me, recently (as if it's some sort of sin), why I qualified my endorsement of Ronald Hutton so severely. I should have been more specific than what I was. So, I would like to devote this thread to that. What follows is merely the examples that I could think of, and tack down in his books, within the past few days. Also, I would like to refer the reader to these reviews by Max Dashu and Asphodel P. Long of his The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles; apparently, after Long's review was published, Ronald wrote the journal a letter informing them (according to the Ed., with whom I spoke) that he didn't know enough about the topic before writing about it: www.suppressedhistories.net/arti....html (though Hutton stated that Max Dashu "isn't a scholar of any sort!" in a private e-mail that was posted on one Pagan site; the author of said "site" refused to acknowledge Dashu's fair criticism of Hutton, dismissing her thoughtlessly as incorrect purely due to political motives) and www.asphodel-long.com/html/pa...ons.html
Unfortunately, one problem right off the bat is how Hutton is often thoughtlessly dismissive of other scholars that have an opposing view point, as though they're entirely inconsequential. As a result, Hutton's work is sorely in need of an objective stance; he needs to "balance the equasion", if you will... Indeed, he's far too keen on ONLY recommended and advancing those scholars which AGREE with him. It's a shame, however, that many rather gullible Pagans simply wave this through, under the banner of so-called "academic rigour"!!! (Honestly, I'm just a li'l offended by that!) Furthermore, it has come to my attention that Hutton really isn't in the habit of writing a histiography-- other-wise they'd surely be FAR more balanced and objective!-- but works of polemic (there's a major difference)! Here is a list, for ease-of-reference, of many quite egregious problems I have found with his writings:
1.) Ronald Hutton (The Stations of the Sun), in his minimalist zeal, claims that any such notion positing divination within the realms of Samhain were based upon "the flimsy nature" of the evidence gathered by two outstanding British scholars (John Rhys and Keating); evidence which is now believed to be inconsequential in Hutton's *opinion*. Rather, Hutton merely *thinks* that these two academics were in error when gathering the local folk-traditions throughout the British Aisles (an accusation he believes should have been apparent to them from the beginning) because the existence of purification rituals and divination "could be explained either by a connection to the most eerie of Christian feasts (All Saints) or by the fact that they ushered in the most dreaded of all the seasons." Unfortunately, he offers no documented evidence to support his thesis—- just an opinion portrayed as though it were empirical fact. (Where's the evidence, Ron!?!?!) For example, nowhere in this tome does he expressly find any documentation that the Christian feast of All Saints was in any way perceived of as "eerie"—- all we have is his lauded opinion. Nor does Prof. Hutton supply any documentation that portrays the genesis of British divination as one that results from this most "dreaded of all seasons" [Hutton 1996: 363]! Had he bothered to do so, I would have found that to be a far more convincing argument. Hutton's "opinion", here, is clearly unsubstantiated! Why he's putting it forth as fact is anyone guess. Actually, in retrospect, it looks like he's simply selling out, making a name for himself, by brown-nosing the skeptical rationalists! ("Skeptical rationalists" can be defined as those that believe if a thesis can be questioned—- regardless of how feeble their line of questioning or reasoning—- that their thesis is, by default, the correct thesis!) Be that as it may, Hutton apparently believes, privately, that a lack of evidence does not necessarily equate to evidence of non-existance. Gee, you wouldn't know it from his texts! But, I digress... What Hutton also failed to take into account is the endemic folkloric evidence of divination throughout the aisles. Often times divination involves the use of hazelnuts, and often for the purpose of love, rather than survival enquiries, despite how Hutton might paint it. Hazelnuts were sacred to the paleo-pagan Celts and are numerously found in medieval Irish mythological tracts. Furthermore, he seems to have an open disdane for other theories of any kind, yet...he's more than happy (and ready) to supplant his own! Hypocritic, n'est pas?
2.) What bothers me is how Hutton has, rather, engendered a sort of overt form of blind skepticism in modern Pagans where no proof is proof enough to them (perhaps cynicisim might be more apt a denotation)! Now, skepticism is a good thing! However, I don't believe that one should be blindly skeptical. Hutton exemplifies this beautifully when discussing Margaret Murray. As I understand it he basis the demollishion of her as a respectible authority on two primary scholars, Norman Cohn and Kieth Thomas. Well, Cohn is the most problematic of the bunch! Cohn often uses one's age as ammunition to dismiss and critique an author or idea-- and he does likewise to Murray, when he writes, "by the time she turned her attention to these matters she was nearly sixty.[!]" This is discriminatory, and Hutton should have seen this going on in Cohn's book Europe's Inner Deamons—- there's really no excuse in that he ignored it! (Hutton should be ashamed of indirectly endorsing this! In fact, if I recall, back in 1999 in a review of "A Coven Of Scholars" that he wrtote, he actually seems to endorse it when applied towards an unpopular scholar) Then Cohn grossly misrepresents Murray and hence asssassinates her character for generations to come! Cohn accused her of ommitting from the testimony of alledged "witches" anything that would have discredited her-- this is a mendacious lie on Cohn's part! Cohn also accuses her of failing to discuss the problematic nature of certain evidence, which is apparently not the case, for Murray *does* discuss the problematic nature of this "evidence"! Furthermore, if one goes back to compare and contrast what Cohn was saying of Murray with what Murray actually wrote, you would be stupified. In fact, she had apparently not ommitted these passages (as Cohn alleges), but considered them in detail! Indeed, if this is so, it would be practically scandelous that Hutton would be entirely unaware of this, or havng never checked, and just rather blindly relyed upon the "say-so" of another author. (Heck, it's academic suicide, IMO!!!) Now, this is not to say that Murray does not need extensive up-dating; she wrote in the 1930s, after all! But, the scholars that have alledgedly discredited her need to seriously rethink their position. Moreover, during the last week of October I decided to read a little more of my copy of Ginzburg's The Night Battles and read something equally astonishing: According to Prof. Ginzburg, the (now) late Prof. Cohn pretty much pulled the same stunt with Ginzburg's own work! Ginzburg says, "Equally unjustified on the other hand, in my opinion, is the assurance with which [Norman] Cohn, in a polemic with [J.B.] Russell (and also because of a misrepresentation of my book) concluded that, 'the experiences of the benandanti...were all trance experiences.'" [pp. xiv]. However, the late Prof. Cohn would have dismissed this all as illusory and, hence, inconsequential without a second thought! (Hutton himself similarly mischaracterizes Ginzburg's book, albeit more egregiously, as though if he repeats something often enough it'll become fact!) I must admit that I find this pattern deeply disturbing. After all, Hutton's certainly dismissed scholars with whom he fundamentally disagreed for pulling the same crap as Normal Cohn did (even for pulling much less than Cohn and others!). I also find it hard to believe that Hutton could have, in good consciousness, been ignorant of these scholastic failings... That is an unfortunate mistake... Hutton seriously needs to rescind, or at the VERY least, qualify his endorsement of Norman Cohn as a scholar! However, he blatantly refused to do this, even as early as a 2003 issue of [The Cauldron (a British Pagan Journal), despite this evidence. It simply makes Hutton look biased, I'm afraid, and a rather poor scholar, to boot. Honestly, as will be seen again, and again, I have noticed a marked sanctamonious attitude in Hutton's writings—- the rules he applies to others, he does not often apply to himself. A friend of mine that's getting his PhD quipped it to me this way, "Hutton plays fast and loose with the rules."
Heck, Coh lists some very hard to believe reasons for dismissing some entirely uncoerced witchcraft trials! One man was cassually questioned by the authorities, for being what was known as a "Free Spirit", because they were known to practice both male and female homosexuality as they saw the refusal of such desires to be the only "sin". Well, along comes Norman Cohn that completely, without thought, dismissed this account, because the individual was apparently, to him (bearing in mind the man's been dead for centuries, and Cohn has no degree in Psychology!), a "paranoid megalomaniac", "schizophrenic", or "nihilistic"!
No scholars seemed to question Cohn's thinking in *any* way! These seem awefully far-fetched "excuses" for dismissing evidence, to me. I mean c'mon, who's he trying to bull shit!!! In fact, another historian simply dismisses this Medieval individual as "psychopathic"! I, for one, have never seen such abhorrant methodology in all my life, especially when advanced as so-called "academia"!
Refuting other textual documentation that would have refuted Cohn's main thesis (that there were no witches, nor any sense of paleo-pagan "survival") Cohn accuses a few women that freely admitted to attending a sabbat and of night travel of being sinile, when he says of them that this is "something that has hitherto happened in the minds of silly old women." This is not only ageist (his distinctive trade mark), but sexist!
Sadly, Cohn's lies are still repeated by Hutton and other British scholars as though they are empirical facts!
3.) The Stations of the Sun: In a footnote for Chapter 40, Hutton claims empirically of Celticist Dr. John Carey, that he has been yielding astonishing results about paleo-pagan Samhain beliefs and practices from a paper he delivered at The Institute of Historical Research, as well as in an issue of the academic Journal Eriu, which he was not able to acquire. Despite Hutton's claim, according to the above-mentioned friend of mine which has as his academic advisor, Prof. Carey—- not only did the article at hand not deal with Samhain in any significant way, but Carey has never set foot onto "that learned Institution" [ie, The Institute of Historical Research]! (Carey's still curious about why Hutton made this claim.)
4.) In Pagan Religions, Ronald says, "...Odin sacrifices himself to himself, and so gains arcane wisdon. It is one of the most haunting passages in Norse literature, in which readers can at least feel close at least to the inner world of norther European paganism. Or can they? Can it be that the entire episode is the Crucifixion translated into Scandinavian myth? Christ and Odin are both hanged upon a tree (the latter being the common medieval term for a scaffold, applied very often to the cross). Both are pierced by spears, thirst, cry out and are resurrected with infinately greater glory (Odin after nine days, Christ after three). All this is surely too much to be coincidental, and although present-day scholars are divided over whether it is a Chrstian poem or not, it seems beyond question that its form was heavily influenced by Christianity. So, after all, it seems to tell us little about the nature of the older religions of Scandinavia" [pp. 296-7; 1991]. However, rather hypocritically, if you ask me, Hutton bases his conclusions only on the similarities, rather than acknowledging their fundamental differences-- an offense he levied upon such "poor" scholars as Frazer, for example! After all, had any other researcher claimed that the similarities between Osiris, Adonis, Dummuzi, etc. were the most likely authentic anecedants to the Christ myth (because they were obviously "too much to be coincidental") you can be sure that he would have stomped them into the ground with scorn! Indeed, Hutton almost seems too eager to casually default to a Christian explaination—- and it does often appear that Hutton has shifted the burdon of proof (see what I wrote of "skeptic rationalists, above). It is also interesting to note that the Catholic Church has, astonishingly, made many Encyclopedia publishers alter texts that do not portray them in anything but a positive light! But, I digress... Of course, at first glance, it sounds amazingly convincing, for those that don't know much about shamanism (or any topic with which Hutton concerns himself—- he appears to may an iron-clad concincing case to those that don't know any betetr), or even Indo-European studies (something Hutton never brings into play throughout this specific text), etc.! However, I have to wonder if, at this point, Hutton was familiar the works of Mircea Eliade (particularly his master-work, Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstacy—- a book he later treats as flawed and inconsequential in future writings)? So many contemporary-early, as well as modern (recent) scholars seem to go on about Heathenism being drenched in a various form of shamanism—- yet, this is all but denied in Hutton's book dealing with the subject. One wonders why this corpus of academia is being ignored? To briefly excerpt Davidson Gods & Myths of the Viking Age: "It was thought at one time that this image of the suffering god hanging from the tree must have been derived from the Christian Crucifixion. But, despite certain resemblences, it would seem that here we have something whose roots go deep into heathen thought, and which is no late copy, conscious or unconscious, of the central mystery of the Christian faith. By hanging on a tree, Odin is not sharing in the suffering of the world or saving men from death, but he is there to win the secrets of the runes..." [pp. 144; 1964]. She also goes on to relate that a variety of shamans are "made" by climbing the World Tree (or axis muni), which is a strong "northern" motif. While, other shamanic parallels are also noted: Like the shamans of the Mongols, both they and Odin tethered their respective horses to their percieved "World Trees". This scene is also clearly one in which Odinn is being "sacrificed" in the manner pre-dating the Viking age. For example—- this pre-viking practice entailed that prisoners/sacrifices be hung onto trees which was continued clear up until the 10th. century at Uppsala. I also believe that there may be an echo between Frejya teaching Odinn Her especial Magick, and the Yakut "Bird Mother of Prey" who carries off the prospective shaman to learn his abilities to "shamanize". Indeed, if we accept that this is actually an axis mundi (as Hutton seems hesitant to do, well...actually refusing to acknowledge), than we can clearly see the death and rebirth theme embodied in the psychological transformation of "Authentic"/"Spontanious Initiation"! Davidson also states that Odinn is depicted hanging from a tree in an early Swedish rock art—- though, of what date, I have no idea. Would it be fascinating to find this out? Abso-freakin'-lutely! This is one fascinating claim that I would, personally, love to research! But, unfortunately, in this particular text, Davidson did not relate any information about this stone with which one may use to find further information concerning it. Too bad... But, to back-track slightly, because Odinn is undergoing this horrific experience, I would definately be willing to assert that it is an Initiation experience, due to the fact that He is acquiring a special form of knowledge embodied in a very masculine form of old Norse Magick, known as galdr, which is respectively idetified with the casting of runes. The shamanistic extent by which Odinn is certainly identified is noted in a great many prose tales in which the God appears. Another VERY important question that Hutton should address—- otherwise, I think he's making some rather grand methodological leaps!—- is if this medieval term for a cross/scaffold is found in Germany/Scandinavia; or if it's only found in English/British areas (of which he is, generally, a scholar)? Ater all, if it doesn't appear in Germany or Scandinavia, than Hutton's reductionist theory—- a school of thought that is now rather untenible—- would be impossible to accept! Something else leaps to mind that Hutton also seems to have glossed over: the Christ was NOT "hanged" on a tree; he was nailed to a cross and crucified! Now, Odinn, however—- he WAS literalled "hanged" from a tree. They apparently, so far as I will advance, two completely differenbt modes of dying/death! And, still, I remain skeptical of Hutton's beliefs concerning the World Tree upon which Odinn is hung as being code-word for the cross, unless he could demonstrate that it was similarly known by such language in Germany/Scandinavia when, and especially WHERE, this particular poem was WRITTEN. Now, to my knowledge, he didn't do this—- we're merely supposed to accept him at his word. My own opinions to the side, according to a friend of mine with Asatruar connections, Hutton is apparently 150 years behind the times. "The idea that the Norse myths were substantially affected by either Christianity or Classical Learning was argued by Sophius Bugge. In a series of famous debates with Viktor Rydberg, Bugge's position was defeated, and Rydberg was considered to have fairly won the debates. Rydberg was able to demonstrate the strong Indo-European base to the Germanic myths" [pers. comm.]
5.) Hutton says, again, in Pagan Religions: "None of these images ['Green Man' carvings] could have been a beloved pagan deity, placed in churches by popular demand. The context of this idea was destroyed with the collapse of the Murray thesis, but like that thesis it could hardly have been argued at all by anybody with a real knowledge of the Middle Ages. No churchmen across the entire span of the period described them as such. St. Bernard, in a passage most accessibly printed by Sheridan and Ross, did inveigh against the burgeoning fashion for Romanesque at the beginning of the twelfth century; but his invective does not in fact prove the point suggested by these authors, for he condemned the images as grotesque, silly and expensive, not as pagan. There is abundant evidence, mostly from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, for the sort of people who paid the masons and comissioned the carvings. Occassionally the whole parish did so, but much more often those responsible were churchmen (above all bishops and abbots), landowners and wealthy merchants. The central point in The Witch Cult in Western Europe was that ordinary people remained adherants to the 'Old Religion' while the ruling class was Christian. And it was that class that determined how churches were decorated. The Wild Man, Sheela-na-Gig and Green Man were all products of that tremendous upswelling of of medieval culture which has been called the Twelfth-Century Renaissance. And like the more famous later Renaissance it ws a Christian movement, even though it drew upon ancient ideas and images" [pp. 316]. However, Medievalist Samantha Riches, in her monograph St. George [Sutton, 2000] argues the following point: "The haunting image of the 'Green Man'-- the foliate face, redolent of the natural world, which sits so uneasily in Christian churches-- has been identified as a pre-Christian form of St. George. It acts as a reminder of his role as an icon of natural fertility; in fact, 'Green George' is a name sometimes given to this image, which may act as a symbol of the return of spring after the temporary triumph of winter. An interesting echo of this aspect of St, George is found in an Islamic analogue known as 'Al khidr', 'Al Khadir', 'El Khudr', 'Khizr' or 'Jiryis Baqiya'. This figure is particularly associated with the area around Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. He is also recognized by Jews under the name 'Eliyahu ha Navi', who is considered to be a special guardian of Israel, and by local Christians as 'Mar Jiryis'; much of the rebuilt church over the shrine at Lydda was converted to a mosque, and it seems that the tomb was positioned squarely between the two sections of the building, and was thus available to both Christian and Moslem devotees. The various names applied to this holy character equate to terms such as 'Living One', 'the Green One' and 'the Ever Green One'; he is thought to derives from the Greek sea god Glaucos, whose name means 'the Blue One' or 'the Green One', a fisherman who achieved immortality, and hence the status of a god, after eating a seashore herb that he had noticed restored his fish to life. Utnapishtim, a charachter in the Gilgimesh epic, attained immortality in a remarkibly similar way, and this parallel may indicate another influence.
"Al Khidr (and his alternative appelations) is reputed to have found the Fountain of Youth, or the Well of Life, which is said to be located near the confluence of the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. Drinking from the fountain confers immortality, and it is claimed that Al Khidr has been repeatedly killed and resurrected; one story involves the martyrdom at the behest of a pagan king. Some traditions state that Al Khidr bathed three times in the Well of Life: in consequence, his skin and all his apparel turned entirely green, and he leaves green foot prints wherever he goes. [...]" [pp. 33] Not only would it appear that we have an image of a paleo-pagan Deity from Indo-European consequence, but...Hutton appears to be angaging in intimidation tactics. According to another friend of mine, scholars all over the place—- though, seemingly more so in the US and UK—- practice intimidating other academics from voicing a difference in scholastic opinion (usually that of the minority). Stating that "no one with a real knowledge of the Medieval period" would say such-and-such is clearly intimidating! Indeed, this is often why scholars cannot follow protocol and admit that there are reputible views that differ from their own, because there is a large tactic of suppression taking place.
6.) In Triumph of the Moon I found this interesting tidbit, that never seemed to add-up. Basically, Hutton seems to be claiming that there's no evidence for the iconography of The Devil having stemmed from paleo-pagan images from other Deities: "The half-animal nature of the horned god, after all, gave him a much more obvious parallel in Christian mythology than the figure of Jesus, and one absolutely opposed. There is here, indeed, a fascinating possibility which must be left open, because at present we appear to lack a propper study of images of the Devil in modern culture, to complement a large amount of first-rate scholarship upon those in ancient and medieval times. Between 1100 and 1700, both artistic representations and confessions extracted from alleged witches certainly portray Satan at times as half-goat, and often with horns. More often, however, the horns are those of a bull, and his most common characteristics are clawed feet, long ears, and wings (or a bat or a dragon). He is also featured combined with a wide range of other animals, dogs and snakes being the most common, or a a black, or black-clothed, man. It does seem as if the standard modern conception of the Devil as a being with cloven hooves, goat's horns and pointed beard is a ninteenth-century creation, representing a growing Christian reaction towards the importance of Pan as an alternative focus for the literary imagination." [pp. 46]. Yet, in J.B. Russell's 1977 monograph, The Devil (a scholar with whom Hutton is certainly familiar), we find the following statement in numerous transmutations: "The goat form of the Devil derives primarily from the image of Pan. From such theriomorphic ancestors the Devil inherited his claws, cloven hooves, hairiness, huge phallus, wings, horns, and tail" [pp. 254]. Hence, it seems to me that Huttons is severely down-playing this "transferrence", if you will.
7.) Hutton, unfortunatelty, is rather thoughtlessly dismissive of Hungarian Prof., Eva Pocs. In her lit.—- as well as the majority view amongst European scholars—- (from reading Hutton, however, it almost seems like it's the British scholars against the world!), she has found a distinct shamanistic antacedent in Medieval witchcraft belief. She investigated over 2000 records and documents, trials and testimonies from the time (the largest in recent history) to come to this conclusion! In fact, the vast majority of these documents would not be available to the Enghlish-speaker were it not for Prof. Pocs. In a PROPER historiography, Hutton should have at LEAST made mention that most scholars in Europe believe she does, and naming those scholars that are spear-heading this popular European thesis. Yet, such a converse thesis is "conveniently" ignored in Hutton's lit., as though such a disagreeing thesis from any scholar did not exist! However, (finally) in responce to it, Hutton only engages in pure *pedantry* in that 2003 ed. of The Cauldron. In fact, it takes him so long to respond to the mention of Pocs that one wonder's if he'd even read her lit. or merely taken the say-so of another collegue. Rather, Hutton entirely dismisses Pocs. as inconsequential because, "like most British scholars" he *believes* she uses the word "shamanistic" incorrectly—- he believes it can *only* be applied to the tribal spiritual practices of the Arctic north, such as Siberia, never mind that her use of the term is only a freaking similie rather than a blatant metaphore of any sort! Am I the only one that finds this shocking and ill-educated on Hutton's part? Hutton seems, at least to me, to be scraping for any reason to reject a scholar or thesis! I, personally, find that *highly* insulting to my intelligence! Though, most of Hutton's dismissals I find highly insulting to my intelligence, for that matter.
8.) And, finally, a couple other points that really seemed to come to the surface this week, because they bothered me so desperately (I happened to by a new book last weekend by Peter Beresford Ellis that supplied a lot of tested-and-true evidence to the contrary; it's what brought this particular facet to mind, I believe): "...it may be seen already that there is a strong possibility that the whole concept of the Tuatha de Danaan was invented by storytellers, perhaps working in the early Christian era and influenced by the Graeco-Roman myths.... Goddesses rarely feature in the Irish literature as maternal or nurturing, being more often aggressive and vorascious in their sexuality and bloodlust. Whether they represented role models for self-assertive Celtic women, or the fantasies of pagan Celtic male warriors, or the nightmares of the Christian monks who wrote the stories, is an open questiion" [pp.152]. While on page 296 pf The Pagan Religions Hutton further claims, "It is very likely that when writing of the Tuatha de Danaan, the Irish were not recording something in which their ancestors believed but fitting old deities into a structure inspired by the Greek pantheon." He even makes the following claim back on page 152, "...there is no trace in the Irish or Welsh literature of any deity associated with the sun (or moon)." Well, what pf Graine(sp?), whose name means "Sun"? Etymologically, The Daghdha even seems certainly associated with the Sun, when many of his epithets are taken into account, as well, according to Dr. Daithi O hOgain. So, I must wonder what he is denoting as "evidence", and what has so convinced him? Hutton certainly doesn't say, and I believe he *should* have... I certainly would be fascinated in the reasons! But, I digress... Early Hutton seems to be claiming, in essence, is that what insular narrative literature we have on record [eg, The Tain] is purely a case of the mediaval Irish monks re-telling Greek myths! Whereas, Ellis states that several scholars are firm in their acknowledgement that insular narrative literature contains certain direct parallels to Indic/Hindu religion, culture and mythology...not just through linguistics. Now, Ellis has said something similar to this before, such as in his book The Druids, but it was confined seemingly to Celtic culture and linguistics. Here, he is far more forceful and applies it, also, to mythology, etc.! According to Ellis' The World of the Ancient Celts, Celticist Myles Dillon made this statement around 1977; there are scholars that have found similar seemingly-direct parallels through inscriptions, that only seem to reflect Hindu mythological themes, etc. Also, concerning the sexuality of the Celtic Goddesses, he doesn't seem very well versed in the Celtic Goddess as Sovereign-Goddess and Land-Goddess, which can explain such occurances, rather than male warrior fantasies, or Christian nightmares! In fact, amongs Celticists, this theory is as old as about the middle of the 20th century. *sigh* Looks like you're way behind the times, Ron!
Also of interest, an Alexandiran from New Zealand I've located has been tracking down and reading all of Hutton's sources in his Triumph Of The Moon, and found gross mischaracterization, as he relates two examples:
"1.) Hutton paints Leland as a crank and a forger, claiming that Aradia (Herodias) is clearly a figure from Christian not pagan theology and that no other Italian folklorist has found evidence for the Vangel. At this critical point in assassinating Leland's character, he neglects to mention that the eminent Italian historian Carlo Ginzburg famously identified the Benandanti, a cult with more than passing resemblance to the beliefs Leland recorded. Ginzburg also clearly demonstrated the non-Christian origin of the name Herodias ("Hera-Diana", which was normalised by the Church to "Herodias"). Despite Hutton purporting to critique Ginzburg's work elsewhere in TotM, he is either unaware of the main contents of Ginzburg's work, or he purposely ignores it. Other, more detailed scholarly analyses of Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches since have arrived at much more balanced conclusions (see the article). (Note that I'm not claiming there is a link between the Benandanti and Leland's strega, just that Hutton has misrepresented the facts.)
"2.) One of Hutton's most pivotal claims in TotM is that modern pagan witchcraft cannot be historically-based, because there was no witchcraft, or even any form of pagan religion on which witchcraft could be based, still existing by the early modern era. Apparently not a single person persecuted was a practitioner of a pagan religion. His main support of this is simply citing seven of his creme-de-la-creme of modern scholars, with very little supporting discussion. Some of these are in foreign language, but of those in English, at least two directly contradict Hutton, freely talking about the influences of old pagan religious practices. A particularly juicy chapter is in the cited book by Monter (I think it was Monter, not Midelfort, I don't have any of this in front of me), about white witchcraft, which evaluates the beliefs of witches in France and England, and describes how the "green devils" in the woods were probably old pagan gods and the saints' shrines to which ill people were sent were probably actually dedicated to old pagan gods with a Christian veneer. Of the other books he cites (that are in a language I can read) none make the claim that Hutton does. They demonstrate that most accused "witches" were normal Christians, but they certainly don't go as far as saying "not a single person accused...". A moderate familiarity with the current academic work on the witch-trial period actually reveals Hutton's position as extreme and atypical. (Note that this is not support for a widespread organised witch-cult in Europe, such as Margaret Murray proposed, just another instance of extreme oversimplification and misrepresentation of other authors.)
"These are two examples of extreme over-generalisation and oversimplification, a lack of balance, a bias or a POV if you will. I can't comment on Hutton's motives, but I've found similar fallacies and misrepresentations scattered through his work. Dashu, despite being labelled as a "feminist", has so far seemed remarkably balanced, and is, as far as I have been able to ascertain, solidly grounded in fact."
But, what I would REALLY like to know is why scholars have failed to censure Hutton, as though they're afraid of doing so, for fear of tarnishing their "reputations"! Where is the "check-and-balance" system? Of course, I could surely find further errors, if I went back to re-read every page he's ever written cover-to-cover! There are likely even those that I have forgotten over the eyars, such as this gem that comes to mind:
According to Hutton, in The Pagan Religions, the Gardnerian/Alexandrian (of course, he's citing Janet & Stewart Farrar) cocept of the Goddess cannot be attributated to paleo-paganism in any way—- but it stems soley from Zoroastrian, and by extension to Christianity. This is simply incorrect information and proves that he knows nothing about Zoroastrianism! Rather, Zoroastrianism deals with a seperate and distinct God of Light pitted against a seperate and distinct God of Evil! This is simply not found within the Thealogy of modern Pagan Witchcraft! Hence, Hutton is attempting to complicate Neo-Pagan religious thought more than it is; he is seperating a single Goddess into two, in essence. This simply shows his lack of understanding—- strange, however, given that he was a Gardnerian when writign this text! He even dedicated it to the Clan of the Oak—- albeit he qualified it with a blatant lie. Hutton wrote in the preface that he was accepted into this Clan, and many opther Groups, because he was a professional Historian! However, according t these groups that have since spoken out about the claim, Hutton was allowed into their practices because he was a vouched-for Gardnerian Witch! This is, yet, another example of his mendacity, I fear.
Okay, rant mode off... ;o)
Happy Holidays,
Wade
myspace.com/MacMorrighan
MacMorrigaine@AIM.Com
posted by:
|
Iowa
|
