Wayelllll.... I must admit, from what I have read, I am *personally* dissatisfied with Hutton's latest text, as it's simply inadiquite (and, I'm surprised that no one's censured him on this clearly feeble, indeed, self-defeating polemic [not to be confused with an "argument"*, as I differentiate the two]). Anyway, in the current issue of PENTACLE magazine they reproduced a portion of a chapter from his recent book, "The Druids", which Ronald has claimed will do for Druidism what TOTM did for modern Witchcraft! Well, in this portion his thesis is that modern Druids (or those from the "renaissance" of Druidism that *did*) cannot be rebell Druids while using the ancient druids as supporting examples-- or role-models-- because, he writes, "In the strict sense of the expression, there were probably no rebel Druids in antiquity". Well, his argument fails immediately on two grounds: 1.) He doesn't define what "expression" of "rebel" he is using; and 2.) he actually supplies documentation of Druids throughout antiquity actually BEHAVING as "rebels"! As a result he seems tro be re-inventing the wheel and using his own unique connotation that the reader may only guess at. In fact, in a serious sense, he seems to be "arguing" backwards, rather than allowing the evidence to shape his "thesis". Now, is this meathodologically appropriate and even kosher? I seriously doubt it.

Unfortunately, this tactic is all too-common with Hutton's material, I have found. That is, keeping his methodology to himself or defining what he is engaged in writing about, rather than opening himself up to possibly scrutiny. Indeed, this is dearly unfortunate (hey, I'm a Pisces...we are a very moved and moving people!). Even Celticist John Carey, reviewing a mamoth-sized Dictionary on Celtic culture and religion, which was expansive in scope, stated that it's greatest tragic failing was that it did not lay out the approach that was adopted for one's readership. He maintains that all texts of this sort (even as Hutton's, I'll add) must do so! Well, at least I know I was never crazy in my stern belief that Hutton (and anyone, actually) should have been doing this from the onset. You don;t know what a relief this was! LOL... I kept getting the most hidious looks and messages, even calling me a "history revisionist" because one may not like my point of view, or that I was noticing some serious flaws within the superficial structure of certain scholars that are presently in vogue.

* It's sad to witness that the vast majority of Pagans don't know, or understand, the difference between the two; and that he write polemics ONLY!

Take Care,
Wade MacMorrighan