A History of Witchcraft: Sorcerers, Heretics, and Pagans, by J.B. Russell & Brooks Alexander (Second Edn.

), Thames & Hudson, 2007. J.B. Russell is Prof. of History at the University of California, Santa Barbara; and this present edition comprises a 1980 text that allegedly served as one of Ronald Hutton's primary consenting sources while writing his foundational polemicsnow considered relatively obsolete by the nature of historical quantifications, due to current revelations (these subsequent texts are largely in the process of being superseded): The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles: Their Nature and Legacy1 (Blackwell, 1996) and The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft (Oxford University Press, 1999). For what it's worth, Ronald Hutton set the stage (an act intimately fraught with peril when it seemingly sets the standard) and introduced Paganism as an academically respectful religion, thus removing it from the shelves of "New Age nonsense" at your local bookstore. However, many that are opposed to Wicca (specifically) and Paganism (in general) have deliberately pointed to Hutton's texts, empirically, as they sneer, "See, I told you soit's a made-up, fake, religion!" Be that as it may, and despite Hutton's personal reservation to the contrary, his early work has set new standards of rigor in the present debate concerning the origins of contemporary Paganism and its likely antiquated genesiseven forcing us to raise our standards of evidence, and searching out those scholars which vastly disagree from across the pan-academic stage (particularly from Continental Europe). As a historiography I found this text to be brilliantly even-handed and generally objective; by stark contrast, Hutton's polemics should be tendered as extremist and atypical in presentation because he often does not fairly adjudicate the current scholastic data on the subject with which his work is concerned.2 As an example, consider that while Ronald Hutton entirely rejects any notion of the Celtic Cult of the Head as discerned by Prof. Anne Ross, Prof. Miranda Green, on the other hand, takes a middle-of-the-road approach, acknowledging it as a distinct plausibility rather than wholly rejecting it due to some perceived lack of evidence; evidence that the majority of Iron Age specialists tend to accept as rather convincing. In this new publicationalmost 30 years since its initial inceptionProf. Russell offers two new chapters concerned with contemporary Paganism written with his present collaborator (and evangelical Christian) Brooks Alexander,3 as well as a new Introduction and concluding-chapter. However, much has also been omitted from the present edition,
1

The Suppressed Histories Archive. Dash, Max (1998). A Review of Ronald Huttons The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles (Last Accessed: 14 March, 2007). Web. This is an important critical analysis of Huttons early work that acknowledges numerous factual discrepancies and other troubling anomalies. 2 This is all the more concerning when one takes into account that Prof. JB Russell can remain generally honest and objective despite the fact that he is an avowed evangelical Christian, while Prof. Ronald Hutton was raised Pagan by his mother and was subsequently initiated into the Gardnerian Priesthood sometime prior to the mid-1990s (in private correspondence he acknowledged that this contemporary Pagan Tradition exemplified a faith that he was already familiar with under his mothers tutelage); yet Prof. Hutton presents an extremist and atypical view of the data and current research to his impressionable readership. 3 Author of Witchcraft Goes Mainstream: Uncovering its Alarming Impact on You and Your Family (Harvest House Publishers, 2004), and Founder of the Spiritual Counterfeits Project: http://www.scpinc.org/ckbody.php (Last Accessed: 12 March, 2008), a website propounding anti-Pagan Christian propaganda.

such as certain photographs (albeit seemingly sensational) that testify to the doctrine of British Traditional Witchcraft, and a fascinating copy of the oath of secrecy and vows propounded by the First Church of Wicca in the late 1970s. Even an entire chapter quite eloquently titled, The Witches Religion has also been omitted, along with many littleknown photographs of Old Gerald B. Gardner and seemingly macabre British folkspells involving thorns and a sheeps heart. So, if this data fascinates you, it might prove worth your while to locate a second-hand copy at any number of used book stores either on-line, or in your local area. When I first cracked the spine of this text I immediately noticed some astonishing anomalies that troubled me, albeit there is also much to enjoy and mull-over in one's gray matter, as well. However, the latter is staunchly over-shadowed by his seeming lapse in discernment, and his apparent "ignorance" of recent evidence. Russell occasionally behaves throughout each controversial treatise of this recent edition almost like a verbally or emotionally abusive loved one who tenderly says, after the fact, "I love you." For example, when writing of Charles Leland's investigation into an Italian witch-cult (Aradia, or The Gospel of the Witches [1899]), he pejoratively regards his methodology by denoting it as "research" within quotation marks replete with sarcasm. However, in the same breath he states that Leland's methods were the scholastic norm of his day. So, why criticize him so harshly and gratuitously at the onset? Like my initial analogy, this bears a rather disingenuous tone.4 It is important to note that Charles Godfrey Leland was able to gain access into groups and cultures that his peers could nota fact, and talent, that is frequently overlooked when he is maligned as the victim of duplicitous local inhabitants (a stance more than generally adopted by the present authors). Russell also implies that much of the Aradia MS. presented to Leland may have been written by his informant, MaddelenaI find this grossly unsatisfactory; for this to make any cognitive sense Maddelena would have had to have been a literary prodigy, which is entirely unlikely given her provincial and impoverished stature, as well as her educational background. Moreover, these documents are possessed of a substance, just below the thin veneer of their documentable sources, that speak of an older tradition that simply does not fit the imaginings of an entire generation of skeptical (indeed, cynical) scholarship. Furthermore, we note that much of the Aradia material is presented in verse, which we know is a mnemonic device employed by cultures throughout antiquity as a means of preserving lore and local tradition. 5 However, perhaps this, and subsequent anomalies, ought to be forgiven as mere obsolete data that was never amended from the first edition of the present work.6 Some other minor, although no less misleading errors are peppered throughout this text, including a caption for a late fifteenth-century woodcut depicting perceived
4 5

Sadly, this is a tactic that has diffused through the ranks of academia, from one generation to the next. Scholars label this orature (orally preserved data, such as folk-songs or mythology), and have found that it is far more capable of retaining information accurately (spanning hundreds of years) than traditionally written documentation to the consternation of General Historians, because their primary biastheir trainingtells them something quite the opposite! 6 It is also interesting to note that eminent micro-Historian, Prof. Carlo Ginzburg, has found some relatively substantive evidence whereby the apparently ethnographic account disclosed in the Aradia material is analogous to a local Italian, shamanic, fertility witch-cult known as the Benandanti (do-gooders); furthermore, it is believed that they claim a larger Indo-European shamanic antecedent.

"witches" shape-shifting in an effort to transvex towards a Sabbat gathering. However, he apparently conflates the generic term of "shape-shifting" with the specific denotation, "lycanthropy", which refers to the transmogrification of an individual into a wolf, hence the lycan- root.7 While, he subsequently relates that throughout Europe, by the twelfthcentury, the entire Continent of Europe had been irrevocably converted to Christianity. This polemic is severely questionablealthough, more worrying, it's extremist and simplistic to a fault; it has been advanced that antiquated paganism survived throughout large swaths of Europe easily as late as the eighteenth-century (though the twentiethcentury is not entirely off the radar, due to suggestions from other scholars: the Saami nomads of Scandinavia are evidently still extent; and many of the Baltic deities enjoyed continued worship until the early 1920s!). Albeit the presentation Ronald Hutton relates below as a counter-point is also debatable (and proves to be mere opinion, for we note dozens of scholars that present the history of paganism far differently: the pagans actually fought hard for their endemic religions against the Christians to an exceptionally late date; Hutton does not seem to allow for this), it serves to advance a case contrary to Russell's preferred position: "During the late twentieth century it gradually became apparent that, all over Europe, the conversion of the rulers of a medieval state to Christianity was followed within a relatively short time by the formal acceptance of the new religion by their subjects. There is no evidence for the of the long-term persistence of paganism as a formal system of religion vanished from Mediterranean Europe after the sixth century, from the western and northern parts of the continent after the eleventh, and from the north-eastern portions after the fourteenth. Among the Saami nomads of Scandinavia, it may have lingered into the seventeenth" (Witches, Druids and King Arthur, 2003: 137).8

A belief in werewolves is a common folk-belief of pagan antiquity throughout Europe and the British Isles. Consult: Werewolves, Witches and Wandering Spirits, ed. by Prof. Katheryn A. Edwards (Truman State University Press, 2002) and Witches, Werewolves and Fairies: Shapeshifters and Astral-Doubles in the Middle Ages, by Prof. Claude Lecouteux (Inner Traditions, 2003). 8 This is a misleading polemic on several grounds: 1.) This statement represents a personal opinion, rather than an actual argument, let alone a fact (implying that we must accept him at his word), which subsumes that something that Prof. Hutton does agree with gradually became apparent, while there is no evidence for something that he does not personally agree with, which makes this passage far worse than the most biased American puff-journalism; 2.) Despite his personal allegations (for which he has shifted the burden of proof and offered not one shred of substantive data for his cause) it has been proven by numerous Historians that Paganism survived long after the ruling lite officially adopted Christianity, which was usually only very superficial and politically motivated in order to achieve an alliance with the powerful Roman Catholic Church, during this period officially recognized Paganism frequently overthrew and banished Christianity and missionaries from their home-countries, while Pagan rulers succeeding the throne according to the Historical Recordbut, even after Christianity was meaningfully adopted, and officially took hold, Popular Paganism thrived among the peasants [see, for example, the incontrovertible work of Prudence Jones and Nigel Pennick, A History of Pagan Europe]; and 3.) While Prof. Hutton is aware of the work of G. W. Bowersockeven citing his important text, Hellenism in Late Antiquity (The University of Michigan Press, 1990), within this most recent texthe willfully ignores Prof. Bowersocks premiere chapter, Paganism and Greek Culture, that proves, unequivocally, that Paganism survived throughout the Mediterranean long exceeding the sixth-century, at which point it can hardly be suggested that Paganism was even on the wane!

As a new edition to an antedated text from 1980 it is simply behind the timesat least behind the last decade of subsequent, and groundbreaking, research! Where's the foundational work of Phillip Hesselton, and even Doreen Valiente (more on her research, momentarily) or Donald Frew's counter-thesis, as well as Ronald Hutton's latest treatise that was briefly quoted above (he seems to employ The Triumph of the Moon as a relative "cut-off date" if one is to judge from his bibliographed citations9)? Be that as it may, much recent research, despite remaining un-cited throughout the body of the text, is only given a token nod within the actual Bibliography. Similarly, I was astonished at this same discrepant lack throughout Margot Adler's recent up-date of her highly acclaimed occult classic, Drawing Down the Moon 10 (Penguin Books, 2006). As a Gardnerian High Priestess, and scholar in her own right, she should have been blatantly aware of these recent paradigm-shifting revelations; neither did she attempt to defend her work from Prof. Huttons mitigation of her analysis of witchcraft-history!11 As a result, I can only conclude that Russell's and Brook's recent edition has apparently been justified to one side of a polemic that it is presently being re-evaluated (indeed, it is in a process of collapse). Hence, this title does not show the same insight and current for-thought (in this regard) as his previous texts.12 Moreover, contemporary Pagans (and general lay-readers) that turn to polemics written by General Historians (for polemics are all that seem to exist, these days) need to be taught how to use critical thinking skills to spot clearly unsubstantiated claims when they obstinately appear! While, scholars that make these blatant statements need to be publicly censured for it, rather than given a green light, "just because it's popular and endorsed" or "scholastic suicide" to reach a differing opinion without factually arguing for one's case! All too often I see scholars relying not on the evidence, but the opinions of other scholars, because the matter has been (so they claim), settled. This is simply a cop-out, not to mention a perfect example of what is known as special pleading when a scholar does not often follow those same quantifiable rules of academic protocol that they impose onto others! Indeed, it is probably evidence as to how academia has become ruthlessly politicized within the past several decades. It has even come to my attention that some scholarsbecause they tend to ignore a lot of evidenceactually make a habit of mischaracterizing other arguments and scholars, as though those writings and scholars really state something contrary to what's actually in print (this is called a straw man argument in which an author or thesis is mischaracterized for the express purpose of being attacked).13
9

I have noted similar discrepancies in academic work since the publication of Prof. Ronald Huttons The Triumph of the Moon: cf. Leo Ruickbies Witchcraft Out of the Shadows: A Complete History (Robert Hale, 2004). 10 I clearly remember reading this book, with fondness, during High School after hours at our community Library! 11 Coda: I managed to contact Adler and I was able to confirm that she is entirely unaware of Huttons polemical text, The Pagan Religions, until I had mentioned it to her. 12 As an example, consult his book, The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianit y (Cornell University Press, 1977) for an example of far more superior historical insights and more balanced conclusions. 13 These mendacious academic lites can't be bothered with the data that questions their opinion; after all, they've made up their collective mind! This arises from blatant cynicism, rather than mere skepticism, which can be tempered (two entirely different quantifiable animals). Some victims of straw man

Another ailment that needs to be remedied is teaching individuals how to spot personal opinion when it is advanced as established fact (Ronald Hutton happens to illustrate this remarkably in his book The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles14). As an example of this tactic, consider the following: Dr. Hutton states in his The Triumph of the Moon that nowhere throughout antiquity was any goddess worshipped as the source of geographical and human fecundity via the hiers gmos, or "sacred marriage" rite. This is opinion onlyeminent Sumerologist, Samuel Noah Kramer comes to an entirely diametric and well-founded conclusion in his own book, The Sumerians (University of Chicago Press, 1963). Moreover, Prof. Rudolf Simek has found unequivocal evidence for this sustained ritual and belief within the Germanic pagan data that appears to advocate the presence of a larger European-wide phenomenon where the Earth (as female) is fertilized by the Sky (the rain identified as his semen); this was enacted physically by local tribesmen in religious rituals, particularly in the rites of Freyr (Lord).15 Even Tacitus implies that the ancient Germans performed the hiers gmos ritual at the time of his writing. While, Prof. Emeritus Fellow (All Souls College, Oxford), Dr. M.L. West, detailed what a homogenous Indo-European religious motif the hiers gmos ultimately proves to be, as a sacred marriage between the sky-god and the earth-goddess. 16 Hence, I find that Hutton has not fairly adjudicated the relevant findings from the present academic world. This is a relatively grave example of sweeping over-generalizations that simply proves to be unfounded when the appropriate data is examined in any detail. As a result, I must find that Huttons position can only be maintained if one were ignorant of both the necessary hagiographic data and primary source-material. In the initial edition of this text from 1980, Russell admonishes the existence of "Old" Dorothy Clutterback as a figment of Gerald Gardner's fertile imagination. Incensed by this unfounded accusation, Doreen Valiente (my personal hero) published an account (in Janet & Stewart Farrar's The Witches' Way, 1984) in which she located the marriageand death-certificate of "Old Dorothy", thus proving her existence! These current revelations in consideration, Prof. Russell has made no attempt to rescind his earlier declamation; rather, "Old Dorothy" is merely portrayed as a leading figure in Gardner's personal assertions (here presented as mythical), with no mention pertaining to her factual existence. This is ultimately misleading, I fear. Missing also is the ground-breaking work of Professors Carlo Ginzburg (Italy), va Pcs (Hungary), Emma Wilby (Britain), Phillipe Walter (France), Wolf Dieter-Storl (Germany), Giuseppe Bonomo (Italy), Bengt Ankarloo (Sweden), Gustav Henningsen (Sweden), Claudia Mller-Ebeling (Germany), Tekla Dmtor (Hungary), Gbor Klaniczay (Hungary), Christian Rtsch (Germany), Katheryn A. Edwards (USA), David Lederer (Ireland), Carmen Blacker (Britain), Gail Kligman (Romania), Claude Lecauteux (France) and an army of other note-worthy scholars with works translated into English.
arguments include (but are not limited to): Professors Marija Gimbutas, Carlo Ginzburg, and Margaret Alice Murray. 14 Long, Asphodel Pauline. A Review of: The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles: Their Nature and Legacy. Wood and Water. 39 (Summer 1992). Web. 15 Simek, Rudolf. Dictionary of Northern Mythology. Trans. Angela Hall. Suffolk: Boydell & Brewer, 1984. 16 West, M. L. Indo-European Poetry and Myth. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

The latter, for what it's worth, is Prof. of Medieval Society, Civilization and Literature at the world-famous academic institution, The Sorbonne (Paris, France). Academia throughout Continental Europe has reached the general consensus that at the heart of medieval witchcraft-belief is endemic "shamanistic" antecedents to one extent or another that definitely support certain variants of the Murray thesisa thesis that needs updating because she lacked a shamanic language with which to refine her arguments, albeit some of her assertions certainly were incorrect (eg. Jeanne d'Arc). Anything less, in the words of Emma Wilby, "is untenable". But Russell follows in the footsteps of Ronald Hutton throughout this present edition by failing to acknowledge this unequivocal body of European scholarship. This failure, or relative ignorance, appears during Russell's historiographic account of the four most prominent "interpretations of European witchcraft [that] are current". va Pcs, for example, drew upon a sample of more than 2,000 witch-trials (by far the largest study to date) and found that medieval witchcraftbelief, and those reported traditions, turned out to be inseparable from local shamanic traditions. Unfortunately, a minority of British general-historians have gone to rather severe lengths to mitigate the enduring contributions of Prof. Pcs.17 However, had it not been for her, a great many witchcraft-trial documents would not have been translated into the English language for the explicit use of scholars world-wide! Pope John Paul II eloquently reminds us that, in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundations and man is exposed to the violence of passion and to manipulation, both open and hidden.18 As a result, I can only describe the constant absence of these major contending-theories from Continental Europe throughout general works by leading American and British scholars on the subject of witchcraft-history as "a conspiracy of silence", perhaps even as a desire for "academic subjugation" (a monopoly, if you will, for they tend to regard this subject-matter as their respective turf)!19 If you would like to read some important questions concerned with modern Pagan research, as well as some equally important counter-arguments, please navigate the following well thought-out website.20 Furthermore, Prof. Carlo Ginzburg is generally mitigated by British academia for his own contributions. It was throughout a subsequent polemic by both J.B. Russell and the late Norman Cohn, 21 where these historians blatantly mischaracterized his astounding work! Be that as it may, one might reasonably argue that such a blatant absence as these presently discussed "values" in the equation of medieval witchcraftstudies is a form of "thought reformation" on behalf of the academic "ruling lite". It should be understood that this will be perpetuated, generation after generation, by scholars and imposed onto the next generation of researchers if they hope to acquire a
17

It quite probable that Hutton is glibly dismissive of such a thesis, as will be seen (consult the article in footnote 21), because Norman Cohn (a polemicist Hutton uncritically endorses to this day) has rejected all such conclusions as resulting from the psychedelic 1960s in America and abroad; an allegation with which he attacked anthropologist, Michael Harner. Cohn posits, rather unsuccessfully, that such a thesis is determinant upon this modern data to such an extent that scholars would not have been inclined to reach this conclusion if such a cultural epoch as the psychedelic 60s had never occurred; but it must be remembered that Prof. Cohns presumptuous hypothesis attempts to shift the burden of proof. 18 Pope John Paul II (1991). Centesimus Annus. 19 I don't know about you, but I certainly don't like feeling as though Im being lied to, as though the ends somehow justify the means! 20 Pagan History. http://www.egregores.org (Last Accessed: 14 March, 2007). 21 According to Prof. Ginzburg in the English preface to his important study, I Benandanti (1966).

degree, or to even pass their courses and get published! Ivy League Universities are not even excused from such unscrupulous behavior: as late as the 1970s one could actually be rebuked for questioning the status quo, regardless of ones substantive evidencethey would have been failed, and were told not to question matters that were deemed "settled".22 This politicization is something worth dear consideration by every reader of academia and subsequent research! However, Russell (at least in this present text) wisely shows more sensitivity towards the Murray thesis than is usually allowed in academic circles, and distances himself from those that claim it has collapsed entirely with all its plausible variants (a stance for which he was actually rebuked by Norman Cohn at one point); such an unyielding position levied against Murray's work is bunk, pure and simple, for more wellgrounded authorities have shown a disdain towards these extremist positions. Hence, it is worth bearing in mind what historian Peter Kingsley once (wisely) said, "Academically, doubt is a virtue. It is wise to be cautious, virtuous to allow for different points of view. The problem arises when this attitude hardens: then doubting becomes a certainty in itself, and we forget the importance of doubting our doubt." (Ah, how soon we forget the contributions of our predecessors, eh?) As a result, another quibble is that Russell generally endorses, without qualification, the ruthless work of Norman Cohn, who has been thoroughly debunked. Cohns often cited (obsolete) text is usually referred to as that which has "closed the door" on the debate surrounding the Murray thesis.23 But, is this an accurate appraisal of his polemic? The late Prof. Cohn, for what it's worth, was extremist and unprofessional in his mendacious pedantry (albeit I use the latter term loosely, because he played fast and loose with precepts of academic protocol). In his polemic, Europe's Inner Demons: The Demonization of Chrstians in Medieval Christendom (University of Chicago Press, 1974), it has been proven 24 that Cohn presented demonstrably false statements about Margaret Murray by simply comparing his allegations alongside what she actually wrote25 (one would reasonably assume that a scholar, clearly as passionate as he, should
22

La Monte, Willow (2000). Max Dash: The Matrix Societies, Early Origins of the Witch Persecutions, the Suppressed Histories Archive, and Worldwide Goddess Veneration, Goddessing: An International Journal of Goddess Expression [Winter/Spring, 2004-5], issue #19, pp. 14-20. Max Dash is a Harvardeducated freelance scholar who attained a full scholarship to this Ivy League University where she studied history, linguistics, and anthropology, etc. But, she subsequently left after experiencing the oppressive and tyrannical academic atmosphere that would not allow any conflicting theories and evidence to break the cognitive surface nor appear within personal research projects if one valued their grades! 23 Prof. Ronald Hutton, in his Witches, Druids, and King Arthur, continues to hail it as a classic on the subject, to this day! 24 Farrel-Roberts, Janine. Margaret Murray and the Distinguished Professor Hutton, The Cauldron [2002-3]. Web. [Last Accessed: 14 March, 2007]. Cohns text is continuously hailed as a classic in the subject (consult Ronald Huttons Witches, Druids, and King Arthur [Hambledon & London, 2003] for this endorsement). But, as time passes, it is becoming more and more unreliable; in fact, its obsolete by todays standards! As an example, Historian, Anne Llewelyn Barstow (1 994) reported that, despite Cohns conclusions to the contrary, there were individuals persecuted for witchcraft in Orthodox areas of continental Europe, citing Russian and German scholars (Witchcraze: A New History of the European Witch Hunts, Harper SanFrancisco: pp. 202 n.24). 25 In my personal experience, a great many Pagans are so cynical and unyielding that they sit atop their laurels as they blatantly refuse to so much as question Cohns treatment of Murray, let alone perform any actual footwork and compare his allegations with her actual writings.

have been aware of the differential source-material documented in The Witch-Cult in Western Europe [Oxford University Press, 1921] and The God of the Witches [Oxford University Press, 1981], rather than seeking to knock down his own straw man argument!). His conclusions scholars love to talk-up; however, the evidence in question usually gets swept beneath the proverbial "rug". Why? Because one might not believe them, otherwisethat's why! When this is taken into account with his earlier mischaracterization of Carlo Ginzburg (a model tragically followed by a slew of American and British scholars, including Ronald Hutton in his Triumph of the Moon and an article published through the British journal, Folklore)26 a pattern of behavior begins to emerge that must not go unrecognized! Cohn also portrays blatant ageist and sexist tacticsdiscriminatory as they areas a means through which he may entirely disregard a scholar, thesis, or otherwise incontrovertible evidence. He complains that Murray had the audacity to write anything on the subject of witchcraft-history "because she was nearly sixty". While he dismisses entirely uncoerced testimony of several women who freely admitted that they traveled to the Sabbat (generations before the Inquisition was anywhere near its apex) of being senile old women, because he couldnt be bothered with the facts that question his personal arguments. In so doing, he apparently takes a page directly from The Canon Episcopi that fully denounced such accounts as delusional. This relatively harsh criticism probably arises from Cohn's post-WWII sympathy towards the Holocaust victims and its survivors (being, himself, of Jewish heritage), which he believed to be the result of irrational Nazi fears (for which there is ample suggestion). However, at the time of writing his classic study (as Prof. Hutton describes it), Gardnerianism was greatly expanding and making headlinesMurray even wrote the Introduction to Gerald Gardner's moving testament, Witchcraft Today (Citadel, 2004), and Cohn simply saw it as another form of "the irrational" (a concept he viewed as protoNazi) or a superstitious cult (to which he was deeply opposed as a Rationalist). Indeed, he probably viewed it as his duty to prove its claims an impossibility, without which, it would become (he may have hoped) impotent and not pose any psycho-sociological harm to relevant Western culture. No matter how one slices it, his work constitutes a classic example of special pleading and a straw man argument (as if the ends somehow justify the means).27 As an aside, it is worth noting that Ronald Hutton ruthlessly chastised Margot Adler's account of Norman Cohn in his Pagan Religions, dismissing her appraisal as "fleeting" and "quite inadequate", despite the fact that Adler's presentation of Cohn's main thesis and characterizations went well over three pages in length, alongside numerous contending theorems centered upon the "Great Witch Hunt". Given Hutton's rather petty dismissal, one must wonder why Alder did not defend her position against Hutton when the new (and present) edition of Drawing Down the Moon was released in 2006? Rather, she seemed to bow and scrape at every mention of Prof. Hutton throughout this relative up-date (of course, this is how it appeared to me when I read the second edition). Please consult footnote #11.

26

Please consult Prof. Ronald Huttons ad hominem vitriol, Paganism and Polemic: The Debate Over the Origins of Modern Pagan Witchcraft in Folklore [April, 2000]. Web. [Last Accessed: 14 March, 2007]. 27 This is tendered as an unacceptable polemic where one invents a counter-argument by misrepresenting other scholars or ideals for the express purpose of attacking an alternative thesis.

However, it is important to point out that Prof. Russell diverges from Hutton on some relatively key issues. For example, while Russell (in the present work, and his earlier monograph The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianit y [Cornell University Press, 1977]) fervently acknowledges that the medieval iconography of the Devil directly stems from known images of Pagan gods, such as Pan. Ronald Hutton, on the other hand (in Triumph of the Moon), rejects such assertions as rubbish for which there is no "evidence" (a firm thesis he would like us to believe), or otherwise no academic literature on the topic has been sufficiently published (though he does not seem to cite Russell as an immediate antithesis to his sweeping generalization when it doesn't seem to suit his preferred agenda). If one has only read Hutton's texts on any given subject, of course he would present a seemingly iron-clad argument; but it must be taken into consideration that there is a relative corpus of academia that does and should disagree with his (often "narrowly-informed") assumptions. I say "narrowly-informed", not as in the pejorative sense, but as a point of fact. In a response Hutton wrote to Asphodel P. Long's analysis of his text The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles (consult footnote #14), he acknowledged that he didn't know enough about the subject before he wrote his infamous book and has been yearning to rewrite it for several years; but the publisher will not tender it out of print until we (Pagans) cease purchasing it! However, it has recently been brought to my attention by an Alexandrian High Priest from New Zealand (upon checking Hutton's sources), that Ronald has been mendaciously mischaracterizing scholars throughout his presentation of The Triumph of the Moonit turns out that many of those scholars (at least those published in languages in which my New Zealand informant is fluent) that Hutton claims agree with him (particularly in that there was never any whiff of Pagan survivalism), in reality, staunchly disagree with him (or are not nearly so extremist as he), and directly present evidence to the contrary.28 So, one must wonder, of course, why he has not been censured for this; or at least why scholars familiar with these cited works have not flooded peer-reviewed Journals and stated that he has not been honest with his readers? Perhaps it was because Paganism was simply not (yet) considered intellectually, or academically, respectable at the time in which The Triumph of the Moon was first published. Be that as it may, Ronald's views are to be regarded as extreme and atypical when compared to the wider breadth of scholarship written on the subject of Paganism and witchcraft. Furthermore, it's a shame that most modern readers do not know what Prof. Morton Smith knew (how liberating it would, otherwise, be), that "...many scholars reject on principle all conjecture except their own" (emphasis mine). As a new edition (even lavishly illustrated with re-prints and brilliant photographs!), I personally found A History of Witchcraft to be an inadequate up-date,
28

The vast majority of them conclude that there was, in fact, Pagan survivals throughout Europe and the British Isles regardless of its superficial Christianization. Moreover, a far more forceful argument can be proposed when Indo-European Studies are analogously brought to bear on the extensive folk-traditions that still color the Isles and Continental Europe (consult: ML Wests formidable study Indo-European Poetry and Myth [Oxford University Press, 2007]). One brief example consists of a chief discrepancy when Prof. Hutton, compared with Keith Thomas primary consenting source, refuses to acknowledge the existence of any evidence pertaining to the worship of the gods of the planets during the Middle Ages [ cf. Keith Thomas Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Belief in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century England (Oxford University Press, 1971)]. One may freely read my New Zealand coevals text on-line, The Trials of the Moon.

albeit even-handed; it was lacking in current revelations and leading research essentially it was a drastically missed opportunity to present an up-dated historiography concerned with the present revelations regarding the history of Gardnerianism and medieval witchcraft-beliefs. Indeed, this text brings to mind a well-known quote by Upton Sinclair (as do all glib "professional" Historians, for that matter, who lack the courage to see the forest for the trees in their zealous denial): "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Sadly, and to reiterate, there is a double standard enshrined within academia with which I am phenomenally uncomfortable (for obvious reasons)! Be that as it may, this book still remains a text every Witch ought to posses on his or her personal library shelf (even if you have come to your own conclusions based upon recent evidence and research). However, as I plow my way through this text, I continue to find more to love and recommend within it, such as his fascinating presentation regarding the etymology of the word "witch"it bears distinct magico-religious denotations, despite the alternative pleas of certain scholars, as well as Pagans! Or the truly ubiquitous nature of the diabolical witch-figure belief throughout antiquityscholars can apparently reach no firm conclusions about how to best quantify these reoccurring leitmotivs. 29 Unfortunately, regardless that a respective text wisely denotes itself as "A History..." lay-readers and Pagans alike, somehow, seem to intuitively respond as though it actually reads "The History" (assuming the definitive article), simply because it was written by someone with a Ph.D.a grievous mistake! I hope, one day, to see it remedied; but until then, I must be content to express the leanings of another academic consensus of surpassing weight. Moreover, this book may ultimately prove to be a valuable stepping-stone in the current debate between differential Traditions of Witches, especially between those Witches that tend to bemoan, not all Witches are Pagan! They may find it quite liberating to note Prof. Russells functional distinction between the religious and nonreligious Witch (or magical practitioner). The latter he brilliantly differentiates from the former by denoting this figure (in anthropological terms) as a Sorcerer or Sorceress! 30 I just hope that such individuals do not attempt to invokeor boss aroundthe gods when performing their seemingly atheist-centered magic, regarding them as little-more than a mere correspondence in a spell! Not only would many Witches (including myself) tender it blatantly offensive, but I wouldnt wish to be in their shoes for anything in this world! For example, tomes abound with love spells gone awry; if one were to invoke Aphrodite in such a spell as a mere correspondence (even if they dont believe in Her), She might ensure that the offending Witch would never get laid again!

29 30

Though, based upon the European data it may have arisen, in part, from early shamanic fertility battles! This term comes to us from the Vulgar Latin noun *sortiarius, which means one who influences fate or fortune, and from the Latin noun sors, lot, fate, or fortune. It was established in its modern form by the early fourteenth-century.