tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post8212461240279860637..comments2023-11-05T04:09:26.194-05:00Comments on e g r e g o r e s: "The New Old Paganism", or, Thoughts on the religious continuity of PaganismApuleius Platonicushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11761230673724504084noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-78524746194992788942012-03-13T16:01:57.041-04:002012-03-13T16:01:57.041-04:00Hi Scott, and thanks very much for your comment. F...Hi Scott, and thanks very much for your comment. For now I can only very briefly address you points.<br /><br />1. In his own words Hutton admitted that he had completely ignored the strong case for the relationship between modern Paganism and late-antique Paganism because that was "in every sense marginal to my own preoccupations." In other words, he was only interested in what he was interested in, not in inconvenient historical facts that happened to directly disprove his working hypothesis. That is an Agenda with a capital "A".<br /><br />5. "Hutton's context is that of Europe because that's the area he was studying". Hutton recognized as early as "Pagan Religions of the British Isles" that a strong case exists for continuity between modern Paganism and "Hellenistic Egypt". That is, he knew and acknowledged the non-European-ness of ancient (classical and late-antique) Paganism, but he imposed an anachronistic Europeanizing template onto ancient Paganism "because that's what he was studying"?<br /><br />As to "claims about regionally specific survivals in Britain and Western Europe", anyone familiar with what Gerald Gardner actually wrote knows that Gardner makes very little in terms of "specific survivals", while at the same time Gardner does make references to Egypt, to Apuleius, to Hermeticism, etc, all of which point in the opposite direction of "regionally specific survivals".Apuleius Platonicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11761230673724504084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-77486370099927308072012-03-13T15:26:56.433-04:002012-03-13T15:26:56.433-04:00A few remarks on your analysis:
1) It's a str...A few remarks on your analysis:<br /><br />1) It's a stretch to go from "I stressed a number of contrasts" to having a "self-proclaimed agenda." The first is a statement about the emphasis of the final work; the latter is an assertion about an intellectual construct that allegedly pre-existed the work.<br /><br />5) Hutton's context is that of Europe because <i>that's the area he was studying</i>. <i>PRABI</i> was about the pagan history of the British Isles; <i>Triumph of the Moon</i> was about the rise of modern pagan witchcraft in England. The disproved Murrayite thesis is specifically that of the covert survival of pre-Christian religion <i>in Britain and Western Europe</i>. In that context, emphasizing the differences between modern pagan witchcraft and <i>indigenous Western European pre-Christian religion</i> is not a cop-out; <i>it is the argument</i>. Your inability to follow that logic is not a flaw in Hutton's argument.<br /><br />Given that context, Hutton's relationship to the philosophical theurgy of the Roman Empire is understandable: he initially disregarded it because he was investigating claims about <i>regionally specific</i> survivals in Britain and Western Europe, and later revisited it specifically to examine its relationship to modern paganism, mediated by the intellectual magical traditions of the Middle Ages, which existed within a Christian religious context. If you have substantial evidence that philosophical theurgy was widely practiced outside of the eastern Empire, and might conceivably have had some impact on folk traditions of Britain and Western Europe, then *that* would merit a revision of Hutton's earlier arguments.Scottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-14222376748588619092012-03-13T00:57:36.719-04:002012-03-13T00:57:36.719-04:00I really like these series of posts you do critiqu...I really like these series of posts you do critiquing Hutton. So much of the Pagan community seem to take whatever he says (or what they think he says) as gospel and it really rubs me the wrong way. It's like, that's not how academia works, people!<br /><br />There are certain things I appreciate about Hutton. Wierdly, I think my favorite thing about his writing is the tone. Even if he's going to flat disagree with someone, he's still respectful and kind toward them as people. Since I first read Hutton when I was in grad school in a program I'd come to despise, reading work after work full of snotty proto-hipsters cloaking their mean-spirited value judgements behind claims of academic neutrality, I think his writing was a breath of fresh air for me.<br /><br />Even still, though, I have a lot of problems with the things he says. Whereas I just roll my eyes, says "whatever, dude" and try to ignore it, I always appreciate people who are far more patient and articulate than I am taking the time to point out the problems in his work. It's important, so thanks for doing it!Rakshahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18292116870736246294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-17662732906999109682012-03-12T12:14:54.604-04:002012-03-12T12:14:54.604-04:00Right. What Wilson says certainly does describe wh...Right. What Wilson says certainly does describe what Hutton and his fans are doing. <br /><br />But Wilson's catchy little saying doesn't apply equally to everyone. In particular, some people are capable of questioning their own beliefs and opinions. This of course is much less entertaining than questioning other people's beliefs and opinions, but it is the hallmark of intellectual curiosity, which is something that any true scholar must possess (not that many do).Apuleius Platonicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11761230673724504084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-78042154388816191062012-03-12T09:29:12.141-04:002012-03-12T09:29:12.141-04:00Robert Anton Wilson used to say this (about differ...Robert Anton Wilson used to say this (about different functions of the brain): "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves."<br /><br />In other words, people tend to find evidence of whatever it is they're looking for. Sounds like Hutton did just that...<br /><br />Very cool article.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16323871207793126503noreply@blogger.com