Ronald Hutton: Pagan God or "Continuum" Trickster?

by David Griffin

Ronald "Q" Hutton

There is no one in the entire magical community with the almost God-like power to create urban myths about contemporary Witchcraft and Paganism like Professor Ronald Hutton of Bristol University. With a power to enchant almost on par with a refugee from the "Q" Continuum, Prof. Hutton has enthralled an entire generation of magicians, creating an urban legend that all contemporary Paganism is but modern reconstruction.

It is no secret that I am not impressed with Prof. Hutton's parlor tricks. Regular readers of  the Golden Dawn blog will recall my debates with Peregrin on this subject that you can find here and here. You can also find my review of Ben Whitmore's critical examination (Trials of the Moon) of Hutton's Triumph of the Moon here.

In her recent interview with Hutton, on the Necropolis Now blog, Caroline Tully asked:

"You have recently been described as a ‘maverick historian’. Do you think that you are one?"

Hutton replied:

"The Wiccan who made that remark never explained what it was supposed to mean, but within the academic world the term carries only negative connotations, of eccentricity, marginality and controversy."

Maverick history? - Or dressed up bullshit?

I am flattered that His Holiness Hutton has descended from his Olympian ivory tower to comment upon my having branded him as a "maverick" historian. I readily admit that I meant this in the most pejorative of senses.

I am outraged, however, at Hutton calling me a "Wiccan," much like James T. Kirk the time Korax the klingon called Kirk "an overbearing Tin Plated Dictator with delusions of Godhood and a Denibian Slime Devil."

Wiccan? I dare you to say that again!

I am certainly NOT a Wiccan, but rather a Shamanic practitioner of l'Arte Eccelsa (The Sublime Art) del Bosco Sacro, the Pre-Pagan tradition that in ancient times arose in what is now Italy. I am not surprised to witness Hutton calling me a Wiccan though. One of my primary criticisms is that way Hutton conflates Continental, so-called "witchcraft" traditions with Wicca, betraying an Anglophile myopia that riddles Hutton's books and leads him to make unsubstantiated, sweeping judgements about Pagan traditions on the Continent that are completely out of the scope of Hutton's stated study area.

Readers of this blog are well aware of my rejection of Hutton's central thesis that all modern Pagan traditions are either newly invented or reconstructions. This argument remains unsupported by Hutton, except when it comes to Wicca in southern England. This certainly does not keep Hutton from pretending he is a God in this arena, however, whose every pronouncement becomes the truth. For example, in the Necropolis Now interview, Hutton wrote:

"neither Carlo [Ginsburg] nor any other reputable historian since 1980 has argued that the people accused of witchcraft in early modern Europe were practitioners of a surviving pagan religion."

What a load!

Is Hutton is deliberately lying, or he really so ignorant about contemporary witchcraft scholarship in Italy. Either way, I am astounded Hutton continues to ignore (or perhaps even cover-up?) contemporary Italian scholarship that runs contrary to his central thesis. As proof positive of the inaccuracy of the above statement by Hutton, see my recent translation of Italian ethnohistrian, Professor Paolo Portone's article on "Witches Flying Ointment and the Night Flight of Witches" here and Portone's "Aradia, Myth and Reality of Witchcraft" here.

Since Hutton's publishing of Triumph of the Moon, Prof. Portone, has unearth essential new evidence that the myth of the "evil witch" was made up by the Inquisition out of whole cloth from the remnants in Italy of the Pagan cult of Diana, the Lady of the Game, or Domina Ludi. Portone's argument is compelling, taken from the trials of Sibilla and Pierina before the Inquisitor of Milan, first in 1384 and then again in 1390.

There is absolutely no mention of this whatsoever in any of Hutton's work, that I have ever seen. So much for Hutton's statement that no "reputable historian since 1980 has argued that the people accused of witchcraft in early modern Europe were practitioners of a surviving pagan religion." My only question is whether Hutton is deliberately covering up evidence contrary to his thesis in an act of intellectual dishonesty, or whether he is merely ignorant of contemporary scholarship on the Continent.

When asked if Hutton is even Pagan, he replied:

"I keep my personal religious beliefs a private matter."

Well, we know at least that Hutton's Mother was Pagan. Thus rebellion against his maternal religion might go far to explain the vehemence with which Hutton tries to debunk any historical roots in Pagan antiquity for the contemporary Pagan movement. On the other hand, it is equally possibility that Hutton is actually a wolf in sheep's clothing, a Christian agent bent on depriving modern Paganism of any historical roots. Cut a plant off from its roots - and it dies. Let there be no doubt about it! Hutton's central thesis is in any case a direct attack on the modern Pagan movement.

Caroline Tully next asked:

"While there is no decisive evidence to substantiate the existence of Pagan witchcraft before Gardner, many Pagan witches would say that this is because their religion was secret and passed down via oral tradition. What are we to make of claims regarding oral tradition?"

Hutton replied:

"I have no interest in contesting the claims of modern Pagans to represent a secretly surviving tradition, as long as the practitioners do not attack me or offer any actual historical evidence for scrutiny."

Note the words "as long as the practitioners don't attack me." I have no doubt that Hutton may have felt attacked much of my criticism of what I evaluate from him as shoddy scholarship and intellectual dishonesty. I refuse to be intimidated by threats, however. Hutton is welcome to make any uninformed and ignorant pronouncements he would like to about the antiquity of l'Arte Eccelsa (The Sublime Art), The Great Rite, or anything else about the Del Bosco Sacro de Nemi e Benevento tradition that he likes (The Sacred Forest of Nemi and Benevento). As an uninitiate, Hutton's pronouncements in this regard are worth about as much as those of an illiterate newspaper boy in Paraguay. 

Without a doubt, Prof. Hutton is a major University mucky muck in Bristol, as he sets out in painstaking detail in the recent interview. This does not change the fact, however, that he is not a trained anthropologist and is out of his depth in this matter. I am pleased to see that at least in this one instance Hutton has decided to quit trying to play anthropologist despite his lack of proper training in the ethnographic method. If only Hutton would have shown such restraint in Triumph of the Moon, where he frequently cited personal anecdote as though it were historical data.

Moreover, if Hutton truly discounts oral tradition, why does he rely so heavily in chapter 20 of Triumph of the Moon?

Finally, by dismissing the initiated, Hutton cuts himself off of any real understanding of the ancient faith. Hutton will never find the ancient Pagan path, because he refuses to do what is necessary to gain the actual data. Instead, he is left analyzing only the dregs that the initiatic traditions have rejected. 

That Hutton disproved the origin claims in antiquity of Wicca in BRITAIN is one thing. That he makes unsubstantiated, sweeping judgements on the rest of the European continent is quite another matter, however, especially when the scope of Triumph of the Moon was limited to Wicca in southern England. The greatest problem with Hutton is that, in his anglo-centered world view, Hutton conflates Wicca with Witchcraft.

Moreover, the inititaic resources that Hutton has had access to (3d Degree Gardnerian Wicca) speak only of the British Isles. The tradition that he studies, Wicca in England, may or may not well be modern in origin like Hutton claims. This, however, speaks absolutely nothing of witchcraft beyond the British isles.

Since Hutton searches for the origins of Wicca only in southern England, he overlooks from the beginning any sort of possible Continental influence or perhaps even hidden origin of Wicca. After all, the history of the UK did not happen in a vacuum, but can only be properly understood in its pan-European context.

In short, Prof. Hutton may have found no evidence simply because he was looking for it in the wrong places all along!

And I thought KAHN was a dick!