Does Ronald Hutton give an unbiased view of pagan history?

[sionnach]

Ronald Hutton has written several excellent books on the history of paganism in the British Isles and made an excellent argument about the end of paganism in the British Isles before the year 1000 and against any notion that paganism persisted as an underground religion up to the present. After reading his books I was left with the overall impression that there is nothing left which we can accurately attribute to the pre-Christian religion. His arguments are well researched and presented with a very persuasive manor. Despite this I am not completely convinced his arguments are as overwhelmingly convincing as he makes them seem in his text. I am interested if anyone else feels there is room for argument or are his conclusions as final as he suggests in his text.

I present an example from his recent book Pagan Briton when he discusses the writing of Gildas. "The third author is Gildas...What is highly significant is that he never included paganism among the misdeeds of the people whom he condemned, faulting them instead for moral offences such as greed, worldliness, marital misconduct, the murder of political rivals, and attacks on fellow Britons. Indeed He explicitly considers paganism to b dead in his society, its memorial consisting only of the icons of he Romano-British deities, still visible within and without the ruined cities, He recalled that his compatriots had once worshipped divine powers inherent in the natural world, but stated proudly that in his time they regarded that world merely as created for the use of Humans.

After reading three different translations of the Latin texts of Gildas ( I cannot read Latin) I cannot completely agree with this conclusion. In the writing of Gildas he states that he was going to omit any reference to the subjects of pre-Christian beliefs which the Britons had in common with the whole human race and calls them just errors including forms of old idolatry along with superstitious honors paid to rivers, mountains, and lakes. Omitting the discussion is not the same as saying paganism to be dead. Gildas writes "This island, of proud neck and mind, since it was first inhabited, is ungratefully rebelling, now against God, at other times against fellow citizens, sometimes even against the kings over the sea and their subjects." From this he is stating there people rebelling against God at this time. There were people in the area which still had pagan beliefs from what I understand but Gildas does not want to discuss the religious beliefs. That different that Hutton's statement that he explicitly considered paganism to be dead in this his society. This is one example and there are other things I have started to question as I learn more but would be interested if anyone else has an thoughts on this.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Does Ronald Hutton give an unbiased view of pagan history?

The thing to remember about Ronald Hutton (and he really is a lovely man) is that he is an academic. And he knows exactly how to present his evidence and how to make it appear most convincing for the point he is making.
This is a skill many non-academics do not possess.

That said, we are ALL entitled to our opinions, provided we understand that we too, need some evidence (not necessarily proof) in order to back them up. It's good to question things - I've been doing it all my life. And I think in all fairness that Hutton would welcome people thinking more for themselves. As he often says, he put his career in jeopardy by writing about pagan matters (I think his speciality is history in the tudor and stuart period).

The problem really comes when people make sweeping statements without any real evidence to back it up. If you have concerns, start working on them. Read what you can about GIldas... why did he write as he did? Who was his audience? And bear in mind that translations can vary wildly too!

[sionnach]

Re: Does Ronald Hutton give an unbiased view of pagan history?

The problem really comes when people make sweeping statements without any real evidence to back it up. If you have concerns, start working on them. Read what you can about GIldas... why did he write as he did? Who was his audience? And bear in mind that translations can vary wildly too!

I like his books and I think he has contributed much to correcting the misconceptions by bringing readable books to the public. I have had and made me rethink what I would really believe in. The issue I have with his works is he makes conclusions that sound too absolute for the subject matter with a very effective persuasive style and outstanding research. I chose his statement from Gildas because I had read his works after reading an old book by MacCulloch , MacCulloch used his writings as a source for understanding pre-Christian religion in the Celtic culture. I have now looked a three translations of Gildas writhing and I still get a different conclusion than Hutton. I am not an academic I admit but I still think Hutton used to strong of words in this case for what we have. Now he may have other sources but they were not documented in his book. My concern is that he swings the viewpoint too much in the opposite opinion so we go from a continuous persisting pagan underground religion with preserved rituals to an attitude there is nothing we can say with any certainty. In this particular case he seemed to change (from the translations I have found) from Gildas just omitting or choosing not to discuss the pagan religion to one of they no longer existed. If these translations are wrong then I would be happy to change my position.

What is very interesting about Gidas writing is that although he does not want to discuss the pre-Christian religion he does indirectly tell us about them from someone who would have been exposed to their ideas and beliefs. His writing tells us they would give divine honor onto he mountains, valleys and rivers which is consistent with what we know about the nature of the goddess to the land especially in Irish Celtic culture who connected the goddess to the rivers or mountains and other features of the natural world.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Does Ronald Hutton give an unbiased view of pagan history?

Try also looking at (a) the date of the translations you are using and (b) any differences between them in the key passages. I've sent you a pm with a few more thoughts!

[Briton]

Re: Does Ronald Hutton give an unbiased view of pagan history?

Nobody is perfect, he had admitted mistakes himself in previous books, but he is better at recognizing assumption and baseless assertion. Everyone is entitled to opinion, indeed, but opinions should be informed, and should always be clearly labelled as opinion. Unfortunately, a lot of information passed down through folklore can come through biased sources. Hutton clearly loves the subject, and seeks to differentiate between honest belief and negative propaganda.

On the whole, I think he is far more informed than most of his detractors. A lot of neo-pagans disagree with him because they've based their beliefs on something they believe to have antiquity but don't at all. Basically saying that their beliefs are not what they think they are. Of course, they could take it with grace, or, in some cases, make poor criticism of Hutton's books without ever reading them, and spiralling into as hominem. But I digress. Listen to critics as well as Hutton, but I think you will find Hutton is generally right. It is, after all, his job to know these things. I would love to meet him. I'm a proper fan boy.

[thalassa]

Re: Does Ronald Hutton give an unbiased view of pagan history?

I recommend that anyone interested in history do some research and reading, or even take a course (if the chance presents itself) in historical methods and historiography. No one is unbiased. But as an author (and IMO, Hutton does a good job of this in the books I've read of his) of admitting and mitigating his bias.

[Riothamus12]

Re: Does Ronald Hutton give an unbiased view of pagan history?

I say he's biased. We clearly have a vast number of folk religious practices that do not come from Christianity. We see folk magic that clearly has links to something older. We have historical records that suggest it is so. Are these records perfect? No. Do we know everything? No. But to say we know absolutely nothing is bull. The old traditions never fully disappeared. The one thing I learned is that older traditions never really die, they just change form a bit. Especially when you look how things went down in medieval Russia.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Does Ronald Hutton give an unbiased view of pagan history?

I think everyone is biased to some extent. And in fairness to Hutton, he doesn't say we know absolutely nothing. He does however question things and sometimes comes to uncomfortable conclusions (some of which I admit I disagree with!)

Part of the problem was that up until, say the late 1960's there was a tendency to argue (thanks to Margaret Murray and James Frazer) that any and all folk traditions could be unerringly traced back to the pagan past. It can't. Some traditions were the 'inventions' of over zealous antiquaries, some were just badly recorded. The Witches' Ladder is a good example of this.

Basically, paganism is a complex subject. I think if we want to challenge something - anything - then it's up to us to read and study our particular corner of interest as much and as well as we can.

[toxicyarnglare]

Re: Does Ronald Hutton give an unbiased view of pagan history?

I've only read Triumph of the Moon, and honestly, it seemed pretty unbiased to me, and if anything, even if he was picking apart supposed lineages of Paganism in England, he still presented Paganism in a positive light in some way. Were I to read a few other of his books, my opinions might change, but I do believe that his book is one of the best to describe how the Pagan movements got started on a macro level in England. Not to mention, he did talk about wise women or whatever he called them, existing in England throughout the ages, which was certainly separate from Christianity. But I don't think one could say that his views are necessarily in conflict with leftover Pagan traditions here and there outside of England. You have the fairy faith in Celtic countries that thrived up until the late 1800s, the Sami people who's spirituality seemed to thrive despite Christian influences, and celebrations here and there in other cultures, but as a whole, Christianity did dominate most of Europe.

[sionnach]

Re: Does Ronald Hutton give an unbiased view of pagan history?

I've only read Triumph of the Moon, and honestly, it seemed pretty unbiased to me, and if anything, even if he was picking apart supposed lineages of Paganism in England, he still presented Paganism in a positive light in some way. Were I to read a few other of his books, my opinions might change, but I do believe that his book is one of the best to describe how the Pagan movements got started on a macro level in England. Not to mention, he did talk about wise women or whatever he called them, existing in England throughout the ages, which was certainly separate from Christianity. But I don't think one could say that his views are necessarily in conflict with leftover Pagan traditions here and there outside of England. You have the fairy faith in Celtic countries that thrived up until the late 1800s, the Sami people who's spirituality seemed to thrive despite Christian influences, and celebrations here and there in other cultures, but as a whole, Christianity did dominate most of Europe.

I have read five of Hutton's books and I get a different overall impression. He may discuss fairy lore, wise women, faith healers and pagan survivals but his main emphasis is to correct the misconceptions proposed in the recent past and make it clear that no organized pagan religion survived and continued up to the present. On this I have been swayed by his arguments. He presents that all current pagan religions are new and not necessarily representative of pre-Christian religions that the were thought to derive from. He presents evidence to show that the entire witch persecution which was suggested to be an underground pagan movement by researchers such as Murry in the past did not represent any form of organized pagan beliefs, and the rituals which surfaced by the 1950s were not based on a surviving pagan culture. This aspect of his work is certaintly important to remind us to be more careful about what accept as being true about paganism.

My concern is he goes even further than that to discredit all types of surviving residual pagan beliefs most preserved in the folklore of the more rural people of the British Isles. In his books he will say there are surviving remnants of pagan beliefs but then does not give a balance between those that are more clearly tied to the past and those so altered that it is unclear if they were pagan. Before this he ties these remnants with the people who created the belief that paganism was a continuous form of religion then he uses only examples where research suggests that those examples may not have derived from the pre-Christian time. You are then left with a despondent feeling that nothing is left of out pagan past.

This technique of presenting possible pagan beliefs then attaching them to people who may have misused them then giving examples where they can be called into question is part of his argumentative technique to disconnect the modern pagan movement from its past and he is very good with his arguments.

I gave the example of Gildas to show that his examples that pagan beliefs did not persist may not be as accurate as he presents it. Now some of this may be just because I agree that a continuing underground pagan religion was not likely and that there is inadequate proof but I disagree that pagan beliefs and even rituals did not survive even when the were consumed and taken over intentionally by the new Christian religion. I think Gildas knew of persisting pagan beliefs but merely did not want to present them maybe to hope they would disappear if no one ever recorded them. Gildas did not say they were completely gone, he just wanted to intentionally omit writing about them to not give the credence.

[thalassa]

Re: Does Ronald Hutton give an unbiased view of pagan history?

In his books he will say there are surviving remnants of pagan beliefs but then does not give a balance between those that are more clearly tied to the past and those so altered that it is unclear if they were pagan. Before this he ties these remnants with the people who created the belief that paganism was a continuous form of religion then he uses only examples where research suggests that those examples may not have derived from the pre-Christian time. You are then left with a despondent feeling that nothing is left of out pagan past.

This technique of presenting possible pagan beliefs then attaching them to people who may have misused them then giving examples where they can be called into question is part of his argumentative technique to disconnect the modern pagan movement from its past and he is very good with his arguments.

I gave the example of Gildas to show that his examples that pagan beliefs did not persist may not be as accurate as he presents it. Now some of this may be just because I agree that a continuing underground pagan religion was not likely and that there is inadequate proof but I disagree that pagan beliefs and even rituals did not survive even when the were consumed and taken over intentionally by the new Christian religion. I think Gildas knew of persisting pagan beliefs but merely did not want to present them maybe to hope they would disappear if no one ever recorded them. Gildas did not say they were completely gone, he just wanted to intentionally omit writing about them to not give the credence.

Here's the thing....if I take an old shirt of mine, cut it up, resew it, and turn it into a dress for my daughter, its no longer my shirt. Still clothes, same fabric, but a different item for a different person and a different purpose. It can never be my shirt again. At best, I could *maybe* still repurpose into something else, but it still won't take be my shirt.

[sionnach]

Re: Does Ronald Hutton give an unbiased view of pagan history?

If you cut up the dress and approximate the material back to make a shirt you have a shirt again. Not identical but enough to wear.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Does Ronald Hutton give an unbiased view of pagan history?

Ronald Hutton is a very natty dresser.

[thalassa]

Re: Does Ronald Hutton give an unbiased view of pagan history?

If you cut up the dress and approximate the material back to make a shirt you have a shirt again. Not identical but enough to wear.

My daughter is 8...there is nothing that will let me fit in anything that has been cut down to fit her tiny body. And even if I turn it back into a shirt, its no longer my shirt, its no longer a shirt for an adult, its now a kid shirt and therefore will have a different purpose and value.

Ronald Hutton is a very natty dresser.

Yes he is...

[sionnach]

Re: Does Ronald Hutton give an unbiased view of pagan history?

Usually dresses cover more than shirts and yes the shirt may now be sleeveless and no collar but it can still have the attributes of a shirt. I have assumed the analogy was in reference to the fact that we only have fragments of the pre-christian religions and when we piece them together it will never be the same as the original. I do agree with that but that does not mean we cannot learn enough from the fragments to give us a framework to work with. My impression that I got from what Hutton writes is a tends to end each section with the feeling there is no longer enough (fabric) information left for even a framework. The result of this is to leave the past behind an start anew. Modern paganism is a new religion and not connected to the past even if there are borrowed things used in the new religion. This is where I do not agree so I started to look at his sources and that is when I found statements he makes which do not agree so perfectly with his sources and noticed how he structured his arguments in a way that left me feeling there was nothing left of the pre-christian religions. Thus I presented the case on Gildas as an example were all other translations give a different interpretation than how he presented it. In addition what Gildas says gives us an important insight into pre-christian beliefs which Hutton does not even expand upon.