Well, I was rummaging about Scholar.Google.Com (my new favourite site, 'cause I have access to ILL!), when I came upon a delicious-sounding academic article in praise of Carlo Ginzburg's methodology, called: "Journals to the World of the Dead," by John Martin in Journal of Social History [Spring, 1992], pp. 613-626. One may read the first page at JSTOR. Thankfully, there's a voice of reason (so it seems!), because Hutton rather ruthlessly mischaracterized Prof. Carlo Ginzburg's work, and chastizing all those who might use it to question his [Hutton's] quantifications, as if Carlo's material doesn't REALLY say what it actually does (in a rather weak "polemic" he write for the British Folklore journal)! Indeed, Hutton cranks, "It proves nothing!" other than that the accused-- so he wants us to believe-- had unusually intense DREAMS (period). But, look at what Ginzburg writes, relkating the transcripts:

"...the agonizing split in personalities experienced by the bendati during their lethargies [exhaustion or weakness], which they expressed in the physical seperation of the spirit from the inanimate body. ... [Maria Panzona] had believed, and still did--and she said so herself--that the spirit could leave the body, and return to it, but she did not know 'through what power'" [The Night Battles, 1963/1986: 102-103].

Moreover, as I re-read this, and reflected upon what Hutton so glibly wrote, I have a HARD TIME accepting that there were mere "dreams" because the accused individuals would have certainly been able to have recognized a dream for what it was! But, also, here, note that Hutton-- while absolutely dismissing the possibility that they were trance experience-- refused to quantiofy what a "trance experience" was to him! Because, it sure as Hel sounds like a trance-experience to me! Indeed, I have to wonder if he would be so glib and dismissive of other tribal and Siberian shamanic trance experiences? So, as with other of Hutton's unacknowledged criterion, what is it so important to him that it's not-- or that it can't be-- any form of trance? He, of course, doesn't say. Don't you think he should? Don't you think he should answer for his flagrent assumptions? In fact, why do professional scholars not call him on this, as I (and other Pagan researchers) have? Why leave it up to us? Can't they clean their own house? Strangely, with Hutton, he is so keen on dismissing somrthing as NOT, in this instance, a "trance"; but, he refuses to denote what a "trance" is, to him, which might open his methodology up to some scrutiny. Rather, he seems to right something off, using only his opinion as his only reason for doing so, leaving us only to uncritically accept him at his word. In other works Hutton flagrently says that something "is not a religion" or cannot be, in any sense, "pagan"; but, he refuses to quantify what, to HIM, constitutespaganism, or a "religion", in these instances. And, damn, that Australian reporter for CNN, Michael Wier, is HOT! Whew... Heh heh heh...

Take Care,
Wade

PS--I also find the continued mention of the importance of those who are "chosen" as a bendanti because they were born with a "caul"--a foetal membrane the surrounds the head at some births-- is also important. As I have heard, a lot of folk-lore contents that such is a sign of one with the psychic or clairvoyant abilities from birth. I wonder if such "choosing" can be found in other tribal or shamanistic societies, etc.?