Triumph of the Moon by Ronald Hutton
The first time I read this book by history professor and pagan Ronald Hutton I thought “this is a book every Wiccan must read because it is a comprehensive history of the craft”. Hutton covered the factors leading to the new witchcraft movement in England and the founding of Wicca by Gerald Gardner. He also went on to cover those who contributed to modern witchcraft and what makes it what it is today. Now many years later after much study and learning I re-read Triumph of the Moon and this time I was disappointed. There are facts and accounts completely left out, there are untruths about witchcraft personalities, and Hutton presents his own biases and only refers to other historians who support his theories and opinions. He ignores anything he cannot find primary sources for (hard evidence) making this an incomplete history. I am disappointed in Hutton as a historian. By only presenting his biases he is providing a disservice to the pagan community. While these biases are not present in every chapter, the fact that they are present at all is bad enough. There is some really amazing research in this book, but it is unfortunately overshadowed by these fallacies.
If you read this book, do not take it as writ. Just because the author is a historian and a professor, does not mean he is infallible. This is sad, because it is usually these credentials that the pagan community turns to when it comes to trusting the content of a book marketed to them. It is still a valuable record of modern witchcraft movement, but make sure that you read other historical titles along with it to supplement your knowledge. Along with Triumph of the Moon I recommend reading The Rebirth of Witchcraft by Doreen Valiente, Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration & Wiccan Roots: Gerald Gardner and the Modern Witchcraft Revival both by Philip Heselton, and Witchcraft in the Middle Ages by Jeffrey Burton Russell. These titles should give you a well-rounded history of Wicca and the modern witchcraft movement.
Filed under: Books - Non Fiction Tagged: | 101-202 advanced/academic reading level, history, modern witchcraft, Wicca
What I liked about this book was it’s no-nonsense approach. Taking his view from outside Wicca, despite being a pagan himself, took some guts. The fact is, Hutton is a pagan, but perhaps he is an historian first. He’s not too concerned with the myths, or worried aobut stepping on people’s toes. He must have presented a good case for his reasearch, and been plausible and even-handed when conducting it, or he would never have gained the trust of so many in closed orders.
Applying his critical faculties to the available evidence doesn’t seem like such a bad thing to me. In Wicca, this sort of synthesis has been long overdue.
Like any religion, proponents of Wicca seek to create a mythology. In a scant 50 years, we have managed to obfusticate the beginnings of Wicca to the point that a lot of us, even today, expend energy and time debating the facts. I find this extraordinary.
No one book covers all the bases, and no one historian is free from bias of one sort or another. I found Hutton to be remarkably sympathetic towards many of the major characters of Wicca, perhaps more so than many inside the Craft have been for those on the outskirts. At least Hutton hasn’t added to the infighting!
If primary source material is lacking, the resulting information is not as valuable to the historian when constructing his narrative; I believe Hutton plays down the temptation to use ‘unproven’ source material to be fair to the subject matter rather than from a desire to ignore things that don’t fit his arguement.
This book should be read alongside all those you mentioned, and any other sensible histories and source materials regarding Wicca. I still think Hutton’s overview to be balanced, well researched, well synthesised and a delight to read. If only the type were larger!
Is it perhaps the case that we as Wiccans are too used to having our beliefs about the Craft supported instead of challenged? We do not live in a vacuum – at some point, an unsympathetic historian might take a pop at a history of Wicca – I doubt whether the results will be as kind as Hutton’s.
I’ve met two types of Pagans, those who loved this book and Hutton and those who hate him and “Triumph of the Moon” with an absolute passion. I personally don’t hate Hutton or his research, but I don’t love this book either. It’s a good historical overview, I agree with more of his arguments than I disagree, and the extensiveness of his research is pretty impressive. I was just disappointed in the unapologetic biases and parts of Wicca’s history that were left out.
I wanted to make it clear to those new to the craft that if they read this book, they should treat it like any other – which means bringing along that grain of salt. I’m in a pretty different tradition from Wicca so I wasn’t offended by his baring open the history of Wicca – however I think this is the main reason for the type of Pagan who hates this book. It pokes through the fakelore that unfortunately runs rampant in both books and the internet.
I agree with you Green Witch on liking Hutton’s affinity for the subject matter and personalities covered. It made the book more personal as being a Pagan allowed me to connect more easily with his writing and research. Thank you for your well written and intelligent response Green Witch.
Slainte!
Welcome. I’m glad to have found your blog – I’ll be visiting often!
I agree with you on the ‘fakelore’ point. Like all books, it has shortcomings, but for those that read one of the less-than-factual histories it is a great leveller.
ps just noticed a shedload of stelling nistakes in my first post. Oopsadaisy. Fingers faster than brain!
Hey, thanks for those other book references, I just finished reading this myself, and was wondering what to look at next.
Your welcome, they’re good reads!
A great follow-up for this would be to review “Trials of the Moon”, by Ben Whitmore.
My problem with Hutton is that I find him the worst kind of researcher – one who had formed his conclusions prior to beginning his research, and proceeds to make the facts fit, either by omission or interpretation.