Recently a topic about Margaret Murrays work and the treatment of same in Ronald Huttons

research was being discussed on Dawn Jacksons "Traditional Witchcraft Yahoo List" and the following is

a rant that I posted as a response. I'm converting it to a blog entry here and pointing it at a Forum thread for further discussion





I confess that I had never read Huttons books in full and have thus
far relied upon smaller articles and paraphrasing of his findings by
others.

Recently I encountered a rather strongly worded polemic with negative
connotations regarding Andrew Chumbley and the Cultus Sabbati which
cited Hutton as evidence for some of the the accusations. I was rather
taken back by that as I had not previously encountered anything
negative regarding that institution and it's most illustrious member.

This led me to purchase a copy of the most recent Edition of Huttons
"Triumph of the Moon" allowing me to look the citations up myself.
I found that the sections cited not only did not support the claims I
had read, IMNSHO they asserted quite the opposite.

At that point I decided I might as well read the whole book since I
had it in hand.

I'm only about five chapters into it, and I can see that Professor
Hutton is taking a massively comprehensive approach and leaving very
little off the table in setting up the modern historical conditions
which led us to {readmore}the revival of interest in Witchcraft that some of us
old farts experienced during the second half of the twentieth century.

Undoubtedly this makes for tedious reading for those who may only be
interested in building a stage for their pet Neo-Neo Romantic notions
regarding survival of Pagan Theology and I can see how some might wind
up glossing over Huttons extensive treatment of the details involved
in the 19th century Greek Revival, Celtic Revival and other Neo
Romantic flotsam that entered the popular vernacular in the first half
of the twentieth century.

The sense I get is that Hutton does not heap particular scorn or blame
on Murray but rather includes her as just ONE of many who succumbed to
the "tone of the times" and like so many even today she simply sought
to prove what she already believed for all the best reasons.

I think one of the things that bugs me the most is our all too human
tendency to throw shit on others and then complain that they stink.

I get particularly annoyed that derision is often cast on some public
and semi public figures from the Neo Pagan Revival of the last
century for erroneously believing the Wiccan Hype and making specious
claims to cover up their adoption of such material in an attempt to
backfill what seemed to be gaps and holes in otherwise traditional
holdings. While at the same time those throwing the rocks claim
Cochranes overt efforts of "Truth bending" cleverly renamed "Grey
Magic" was perfectly acceptable.

I prefer to believe this was mostly done for "all the best reasons"
and I tend not to buy into the invective that they were just trying to
feather their own nest for personal gain. If Cochrane lied his ass off
to impress his audience and is lauded for doing so, then I don't see
why others should be tarred and feathered for doing the same thing.

I suspect that getting others to believe you is a core skill of the
cunning art and that the true masters of our art, like the master of
the illusory arts of legerdemain, never descend to the scurrilous act
of attempting to raise their own credibility at the expense of others.
(IE: Stage Magicians do not expose the secrets of how their
competition achieve their effects.)

From my own experience the era between the mid 1960's and our current
time has been riddled with a succession of "Witch Wars" and campaigns
of "Bad Mouthing" and I for one am just tired of it. When I see others
engage in it my first instinct is to back away and keep my distance
because I don't think it takes a huge store of Wisdom to know that
someone who "turns on" one associate will eventually get around to
working the same drill on others and that it should be no surprise
when the target winds up on your own back.

I'm fairly well read regarding the history of Witchcraft and it seems
to me that this tendency of modern Witches to savage each other over
differences in traditional belief has no analog in the past. If there
is I'm perfectly happy to be corrected on that score.


LUX ./. owen

While I freely admit I am not a big fan of Hutton's work, there is a good interview with him posted at http://druidnetwork.org/en/profiles/people/ronald_hutton.html#interview (from 2003, so a bit out of date). Mysticwicks (http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=93041) had a lengthy discussion regarding his work a couple of years ago.

You've probably also read Jani Farrell-Roberts' articles/correspondance from The Cauldron (http://www.sparks-of-light.org/Murray%20and%20the%20Professor.html) on the subject of Murray and Hutton.

My personal opinion is that Murray did the best she could given the limitations on travel during the period she wrote "Witch Cult" and "God of the Witches"; a period when she could not conduct the same level of field research she did with her Egyptian studies, and that far too many of her detractors selectively edit their own evidence as well, including Hutton.

Like I said in my rant I am only about 150 pages into TOTM and at that stage of the book he has not yet lasered in on Murray, but simply flung a few turds her way.

I admittedly title the blog entry as a rant because that is what it is. I'm no scholar and these folks who have the capacity to operate at the Academic level usually bore me to tears, with the singular exception of Bob Mathiesen who is always a gentleman and never talks down to us despite his impeccable academic credentials.

It seems to me that the fly in the ointment when it comes to academic work is that like with the Bible one can always find something that can be shaped into whatever is needed to support a pet thesis. This pissing match between Jani Farrell-Roberts and Hutton is a perfect example.

I'm more interested in refining my own connection to my personal inner work than with the back and forth of competing theories.

I imagine that historians can argue till the cows come how about what was in the minds of those who lived the eras they write about. But is it possible they can think they achieve absolute certainty in that regard?
How can someone without the ability to travel back in time and employ perfect mind reading skills be absolutely sure of any such thing?
My opinion is that some of these people are just playing "Gotcha ping pong" and somehow derive a sense of satisfaction thereby.

The incident I mention wherein TOTM was used to disparage Chumbley and The Cultus Sabbati is this sort of thing but being played out as what I figure is a "personal issue" most likely derived from some perceived slight.

Having lived through the tumultous era between 1975 and the millennial egress which saw way too many "Witch Wars" I am sensitized to this whole issue of "My Tradition is better than your Tradition - nanny nanny boo boo"

If I have any agenda here it is to try and find a way to build conversation that allows people to hold disagreement without rancor and share personal views without descending to name calling and invective.

As I said what bugs me the most is when people throw shit on something or someone and then complain that it stinks.