Does Ronald Hutton give an unbiased view of pagan history?

[Rae'ya]

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.

It may have the function of a shirt, but it's not a shirt any longer. A potato sack can be altered to have the same function as a shirt. Doesn't make it a shirt.

As for Hutton... what evidence do you have that suggests his (assumed) claims about there being no longer enough information are incorrect? Are you privy to some primary sources that Hutton is not? What evidence do you have that suggests Gildas is not a biased writer himself?

Finding another author with whom you agree more doesn't not constitute evidence that the author you disagree with is wrong. All authors have some bias... even academic ones. In many ways, academic authors who are dealing with history and anthropology are MORE inclined to bias that others, simply because they are working with limited and incomplete primary sources. It is up to them to fill in the gaps in the source material... and frankly, I prefer an academic who is very up front about the flaws in his sources over the one who blithely fills the gaps with his own opinions and doesn't own up to that fact.

If you wish to gain a completely 100% unbiased view of a period of time for which we have limited primary sources, you'd best get started inventing a time machine. Because that's the only way you'll eliminate the bias required for the educated guesswork of anthropology.

[Tylluan Penry]

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

I think each and every one of us is entitled to our opinion. And if that means we differ with Ronald Hutton or whoever, that's fine. The thing is, we do need to have more than a 'gut instinct' to guide us. That means we need to read for ourselves. As I said early on in this thread, it's important also to remember the problems inherent in relying on translations.

Another thing to remember is that - given the current state of the history .v. archaeology situation - the two subjects should agree but often don't.

There are things I don't agree with Ronald Hutton about... and I well remember nearly having a fit when he turned up to one of my Nature Walks a few years back. But he really is a very nice man, very generous with his time and knowledge. I think he would be the first to say that we should make the effort to learn more about the subjects that interest and inspire us.

The thing is, we do find new information all the time. Academics contradict themselves (let alone each other!)

I know full well that I am going to get it in the neck with my next book (about Anglo-Saxon runes) partly because I have translated them for myself rather than relying on earlier, 'academic' translations. The thing is, that the standard translations often differ quite widely from each other. It really depends on where we're coming from.

Hutton often talks about the enormous cost to his career of writing about pagan matters. For that he deserves our respect. We should never follow anyone blindly - past, present of future. But learning how to argue, and which matters are crying out for our attention is the important thing.

[sionnach]

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

I think each and every one of us is entitled to our opinion. And if that means we differ with Ronald Hutton or whoever, that's fine. The thing is, we do need to have more than a 'gut instinct' to guide us. That means we need to read for ourselves. As I said early on in this thread, it's important also to remember the problems inherent in relying on translations.Another thing to remember is that - given the current state of the history .v. archaeology situation - the two subjects should agree but often don't. There are things I don't agree with Ronald Hutton about... and I well remember nearly having a fit when he turned up to one of my Nature Walks a few years back. But he really is a very nice man, very generous with his time and knowledge. I think he would be the first to say that we should make the effort to learn more about the subjects that interest and inspire us. The thing is, we do find new information all the time. Academics contradict themselves (let alone each other!) I know full well that I am going to get it in the neck with my next book (about Anglo-Saxon runes) partly because I have translated them for myself rather than relying on earlier, 'academic' translations. The thing is, that the standard translations often differ quite widely from each other. It really depends on where we're coming from.Hutton often talks about the enormous cost to his career of writing about pagan matters. For that he deserves our respect. We should never follow anyone blindly - past, present of future. But learning how to argue, and which matters are crying out for our attention is the important thing.

Beautifully put and I would love to read your book about Anglo-Saxon runes. I knew when I posted this there might be misunderstanding about what I feel about Hutton's writings but I wanted to express how he let me with a rather gloomy feeling about learning anything about the pagan past. He certainty knows more than I do but I still believe he presented it in an overly negative way carefully structuring his writing to end each chapter with a feeling that little is left that we can feel certain about. What I find important is that he forces us to think more critically about what we believe and where we get out information along with how we interpret it. I also wanted to point out that he made statements as in the case of Gildas that were represented as so obvious and certain and yet four different translations later I still think he could not sound so certain for being and academic. But I am not an academic so maybe that is why I see things differently that he does. I personally believe we can take what fabric we have left and weave what we can to recover as much as we can from our heritage and adjust it as we must to the world we now live in. It will not be identical but it seems to me to have been the nature of pagan religions to adapt and change. We have folklore, archaeology, cultural traditions, and writhings from outsiders which offer us at least a framework to begin. Sharing what we learn between each other in forums like this is a way to help each other understand our past in more realistic terms and to share new ideas of how we use this information. There is one thing that I am curious is why would one one to call oneself pagan if there was not an interest in trying to at least understand the past. If one wants to just create a new religion then why not just call it new age or another name. What ever one thinks of the term pagan it does have a past and is connected with the pre-christian religions from the beginning of the word usage through the revivals to restore pagan beliefs. That of course is just my view on the matter. I really appreciate the posting which I have learned so much. The more we engage in our understanding of paganism the more respect it gets. Thanks.

[Tylluan Penry]

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

Thank you Sionnach. I remember years ago, one of my tutors (in Egyptology of all things ) was widely criticised by many of his students because he was always saying, 'Of course, we don't really know.' They felt this made him a 'bad' tutor.
Actually, I found the opposite was true. What he was telling us was exactly right, we didn't know although he was a naturally gloomy soul, and made it sound far worse than it was. He was really challenging us to go out and find out more.

Anyone can have a theory. I have loads. I try to back them up with as much research as I can, in order to say 'I believe this because...' The problems - as you point out - arise when people claim things are old when they aren't. It's a bit like Gerald Gardner and Wicca. Was it really 'the old religion' or not? Whatever we think about that particular question, we need to reason our answers.

I too, often feel that Hutton tends to be overly negative, but I think he is constricted a great deal by his own academic status. That said, if we read his books, chase some of the references, and read original sources (in the original language where possible), then we have a good chance of reaching our own conclusions that will hold some water. I think Hutton provides a very valuable and scholarly counterbalance to some of the wilder claims that are made sometimes!

Good luck with your own studies!

[sionnach]

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

Thank you again for that perspective especially since I am not an academic nor have the resources that others do. I appreciate what Hutton did with his work by clearing the air with respect to the viewpoint of a continuous underground pagan culture characterized by the witch trials that were proposed as a continuing pagan religion with people who kept the old knowledge and rituals alive from the pre-Christian time. What Gardner did when he became public after the repeal of the old standing witch laws in England was to create a religious cult with the pretext that it was based on the ancient rituals and beliefs that had little to no evidence to show they were ever connected to the beliefs and rituals of the British Isles before Christianity set foot on the islands. Hutton's book Triumph of the Moon brought this into focus in a readable way to the public which forced anyone interested in pagan beliefs to relook at what they believe. In his conclusions the ancient ties were severed long ago with no surviving pagan religion represented by the witch trials and it seems unlikely that we will ever find the unbroken line of pagan religion from western Europe. So what do we have?

In 2004 there was the international conference in Lund Sweden looking at an academic/research approach to better understand the old Norse religion. This conference lead to the publication of the book Old Norse Religion in Long Term Perspectives. They used multiple approaches to try to piece together what evidence there is to understand the religion of a people who left no written record. They demonstrated the difficulty in interpretation and yet they also did find way of connecting the myths, folklore and archaeology in a positive way to attempt an understanding of the pre-Christian religion found in Scandinavia. They clearly showed that there was both variability and significant change over time particularly with respect to social structure changes and influences from outside of their sphere of influence especially the influence of the Roman culture. I felt they gave more hope that we can understand more about the beliefs which were never written down by the people who believed in them.

So where does one go from this point. I believe it is not unreasonable for us to use the folklore, myths, and academic evidence to form a religion which is not as new as Hutton would suggest from this books on the subject. We do not need a continuous line of pagan believers to give paganism authenticity. I also do not believe we have created a new religion as Hutton has suggested in the book Triumph of the Moon. I believe we have enough of out pre-Christian past availible to us to continue with pagan religion now just changed for out time just as pagan religions changed in the past. What is important is to keep up the discussion about what we know so that we can weave together a reasonable pattern. Through forums and discussions we can find some common ground without complete loss of our individuality which so many are afraid of when any type of generalization is made. So even though I agree with most of what Hutton presents I personally disagree with his conclusion about paganism as a brand new religion. I think we can find reasonably understand what they believed in and adapt it to our time.