>> Is it just me, or does Hutton and his ilk often get away with merely taking it at face value that Paganism completely died, without actually *proving* it; rather, all they claim is that the evidence we have for it's survival is simply "not evidence" enough! However, it should be blatantly remembered that Hutton has blatantly misrepresented many of the scholars he cites as being in agreement with him--many *actually* claim that yes, there *was* Pagan beliefs, practices and worship going on through the early-modern period. So, one wonders how he as been able to get away with this! After all, *I* would be terrified of being exposed--wouldn't you? Moreover, one must wonder what lead him to do this, to begin with? What convinced him that this was even a good idea, or in any way appropriate! <<

Those who insist on the "death" of Paganism do so because that is what they wish to believe. If this were not so, then someone, somewhere would be able to answer the question of when and where and how it was that Paganism "died". Since its proponents cannot articulate any such clear objective basis for their position, it follows that the belief that Paganism is "dead" is just something that people choose to believe in. Which is fine - it's a free country. People should be free to believe whatever they want.

So the real debate is essentially ideological. But what is the basis for this "ideological dispute"? Hutton and his fans are uncomfortable with any kind of "radical" Paganism - a Paganism that sees itself in conflict with anglo-american white middle-class "modern" "western" values. The bourgeois, white-bread culture that Hutton wants to accomodate is, however, a thoroughly Christian culture, and therefore Christianity must be exonerated of any wrongdoing in its 1700 year campaign to extirpate Paganism (even to the extent of expressing gratitude for the "moderating role" of the Holy Office of the Inquisition as Hutton does in Triumph of the Moon). So Hutton promotes a kinder, gentler view of Christianization - according to which the "old" Paganism just died peacefully in it's sleep. It was all over very quickly and even "tidily". Nothing to get worked up over.

This is also precisely the view of Christianization promoted by those short-sighted scholars who have jumped onto the "Pagan monotheism" bandwagon. The "theory" that "Pagan monotheism" served as the missing link in a peaceful, gradual evolutionary change from Paganism to Christianity (a change that was so peaceful and gradual that it was hardly even noticed at the time!) has been uncritically and enthusiastically embraced by Hutton (in Witches Druids and King Arthur).

But if ancient Paganism is viewed in any kind of genuinely positive, sympathetic light - then one immediately assumes that there would be people who would resist Christianization - which obviously there were. A comparative approach - looking at other cases of religious persecution (such as that of Judaism in late 15th century Spain, or that of Christianity in 16th century Japan) - would also immediately lead one to realize that religions can and do survive under precisely the kinds of conditions that Paganism began to face in the 4th century. Unless one takes such cases into serious consideration one is treating the suppression of Paganism in Europe starting in the 4th century as an ahistorical, "exceptional" event - which is exactly how Hutton treats it. But as soon as one takes a genuinely historical and comparative approach, one starts to actively look for evidence of Pagan survival, and, voila, it is everywhere.

Only if one starts out by blindly accepting the self-serving triumphalist propaganda that Christians have been peddling since the 4th century, does one BEGIN with the assumption that Christianization quickly and easily led everywhere to complete extirpation of Paganism. Once one starts from there, and then demands "proof" of Pagan surivival, what inevitably follows is a set of "arguments" to dismiss the mountains of evidence for Pagan survival. All of these well-rehearsed "arguments" turn out to have their origins among Christian "scholars" and "historians" going back to Eusebius, Augustine and Orosius 1600 years ago (including especially the "Pagan monotheism" meme).