tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8814337050017726886.post5283213157398664866..comments2023-09-01T10:08:28.177-07:00Comments on The Golden Dawn Blog: The Wrath of Q & The Return of Ronald HuttonImperator David Griffinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05569334890339311989noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8814337050017726886.post-4907615371489084082012-03-29T07:12:17.953-07:002012-03-29T07:12:17.953-07:00A couple of thoughts on your post and reply to Car...A couple of thoughts on your post and reply to Caroline Tully:<br /><br />First, you seem to be assuming that Hutton's scholarly purpose is to "find initiatic survival" of ancient paganism in modern times. As far as I can tell, that wasn't the point of <i>Triumph</i> at all - it was intended to document the popular climate of ideas in Britain that led up to the emergence of British Wicca in the '50s, and its subsequent career. "Survivals" only come into the question insofar as Murray's ideas loomed large in the popular imagination during that period, and were ignored or discredited by scholars but remained influential outside the academy.<br /><br />Second, if the information on initiatic survivals is oathbound, then even if Hutton were to be initiated in a tradition that could substantiate survivals, he couldn't publish the information in an academic work.<br /><br />Third, Hutton is working as an academic historian, and the academic study of history has rules for what evidence is allowable. If a given initiatory tradition claims an unbroken lineage from antiquity, but cannot substantiate that claim with any evidence other than the oral tradition among its own initiates, then that claim cannot support an academic argument *regardless of its truth*. Anecdotal information is only acceptable in a historical argument if the informants were directly involved in the activities on which they are informing, so unless an initiatic tradition has undying Secret Chiefs willing to testify on-record and substantiate their centuries-long existence, a tradition's oral testimony is useless to support a historical argument. (It would, however, be very useful for an anthropological study of occult beliefs, but that is a profoundly different enterprise.)Scottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8814337050017726886.post-70519583538263392042012-03-02T12:35:34.545-08:002012-03-02T12:35:34.545-08:00That is fine if Hutton is an initiate of British W...That is fine if Hutton is an initiate of British Wicca. Even so, with the exception of in the British Isles, Hutton has no authority. He even says so in the preface of his book, that it only applies to the southern British isles. <br /><br />But then Hutton turns around and makes sweeping judgements about Pagan survival on the continent, where he is definitely NOT an initiate, and thus is not privy to oath bound data. <br /><br />Hutton not only inappropriately cites anecdotal information as though it were historical data and although he is not properly trained in the ethnographic method to properly analyze such data, but he also makes sweeping and unsubstantiated generalizations about Pagan survival in regions like Italy where Hutton is completely out of his field of expertise and explodes the scope of his study.Imperator David Griffinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569334890339311989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8814337050017726886.post-57281174248789292232012-03-02T00:43:58.439-08:002012-03-02T00:43:58.439-08:00But what makes you think that Hutton is _not_ an i...But what makes you think that Hutton is _not_ an initiate of British Wicca? I believe that, in fact, he is.Caroline Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18295336008587199702noreply@blogger.com