Hiya, Curt! Perhaps you could aid me in a problem I am having... How is it that Hutton can cite various scholars in agreement with him when he alleges that there was not so much as a whisp of paganism (regardless of the definition) within early modern witchcraft-belief, or that entire period of time; yet, when one actually checks the sources on which Huttoin is relying, these authors state unequivocally the contrary, giving copious examples? How has Hutton not been censured by his academic peers for this? And, why is Norman Cohn not a constant source of emberassment for American and British academia for his sexist and ageist tactics that were employed by him soiley for the purposes of discrediting perfectly valid evidence, as well as his use of them against Margaret Murray, not to mention the fact that he demonstrably lied about her work in order to discredit her! In a nutshell: Cohn alleges that Murray ommittted fantastical details from her quoted extracts to make the Sabbats sound realistic; however, of all the extracts Cohn says she ommited, she *actually* considered them ALL in great detail throughout her books! Well...save for one, but this sole exception would not have discredited her in any way.

Sadly, when this was brought to Hutton's attention (surely he had read Murray's works?) he refused to admit that Cohn had been in error on these points. *sigh* Hutton has even gone so far as to mischaracterize the work of Carlo Ginzburg (as though it cannot speak for itself) when he alleges that it says only what he allows it so, because some researchers use it as evidence countering his preferred position! How can this reasonably be allowed?

So, my good friend, I ask you: WTF? ;o) After all, if I had done what Hutton had (or Cohn), I'd be terrified of being exposed as a fraud...and my Pagan peers woiuld be certain to pounce on me for it, too! So, again...WTF?

Take Care,
Wade