Hey, I just relocated a reference I'd been looking for, for a long time. It has long been said that Prof. Hutton often couches his personal opinions as though they are established fact. This is a huge problem, in my opinion, when I come across this in the work of any scholar! Furthermore, this behavior puts the reader (usually an interested lay-person) in an impossible position because they usually will not have the data on hand to question something couched as fact; so, they are put in the position (one that I have always found to be VERY uncomfortable!) of taking Prof. Hutton's word for it. Anyhoo...I was flipping through a new reference books that I bought yesterday (never did find the book that I already own with this reference!): "The Oxford Dictionary of Superstition". And, while flipping through it, I came upon a passage that directly refutes Hutton's declaration in his "Pagan Religions" that "no god worthy of the name" would ever lower itself to being invoked, conjured, or summoned; and, so, he employs this *personal* opinion (couched as established fact!) in order to purposefully discredit any claims that Gardnerianism might have to the ancient past. He does so by implying that there's no evidence or documentation that any deity throughout Europe was ever "invoked". However, as this Dictionary makes abundantly clear, directly quoting Pliny's "Natural History, II": "King Tullus H...while attempting to summon Jupiter...was struck by lightning on consequence of his omission to follow certain forms with due exactness" [pp. 406]. Ever since I had been made aware of this documentation I have had to wonder why no one educated in the Classics noticed this? It would have been valuable, I think, for such a scholar to have called him on such grounds. And, why in the world have so many scholars reviewing his books allowed him to get away with *obvious* Logical Fallacies, like "Special Pleading", and the like? That is, to me, quite upsetting.