Trials of the Moon: Reopening the Case for Historical Witchcraft. A critique of Ronald Hutton's The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft

I did things a little backward with regards to this book. I did not buy Hutton’s book of which this is a critique. I thought I knew enough about it from clicking the title and reading through the preview online, did not like it nor want to read it. I bought "Trials of the Moon" and read it all the way through and liked it. I liked it so much that I went on E-bay and bought the cheapest, used, raggedy-ass copy I could find of Hutton's book, just to verify the points made by the author of “Trials.” I could not believe that someone, with the supposed credentials of Hutton, was involved with such sloppy and biased research as I found in his writing. I was very happy to have found someone to say, “NO, this is not true, and this is not the way it is.” I think that Ben Whitmore deserves a lot of credit for his Critique. If you are in the Craft, please read this book; do not take Hutton’s title as the final word. It isn’t. More and more evidence is being discovered weekly that the craft could have come through the persecutions and actually be what at least, some of us think it is, an inheritance from the past. Great Job, Ben. JM

This was a lovely book. When I first got it I was surprised at how tiny it was, since Ronald Hutton's "Triumph" is about as thick as a phone book. I read this book in 2 days, its that short, but it is filled with a wealth of information. Upon finishing Ronald Hutton's "Triumph" I couldn't help but feel disappointed, not because I disagreed with his conclusions, but because I felt he was writing very narrowly to bring the audience to a conservative opinion on the history. I also scratched my head wondering why he chose to address some evidence against his conclusions, but ignored many others. When reading the reviews I was excited to hear from others that a critique of "Triumph of the Moon" had been written, and immediately bought it. 5 stars. I enjoyed reading it for the most part, (although the constant footnotes can get almost headache inducing). The typeset is beautiful and I'm disappointed that the book doesn't say what typeset it was printed in. All in all every Pagan who has been led unquestioningly into the "Gerald Gardner invented it" category should read this. Although it's very harsh on Ronald Hutton, I can't say it's untrue. Hutton deserved the criticism this book gave him, and I hope that the Pagan community starts to view Ronald Hutton's viewpoint more critically, if that's at all possible at this stage. Hutton's ideas have permeated the Pagan community unquestioningly, and the information in this book shows why that's a very, very bad thing.

Good book, but parochial in the sense that the writer has their own biases, and lack of the exact genre that the Donald Hutton applied to the treatment of information. Evidence was there but its treatment was not what I expected.

Ordinarily I would not be interested in what is basically a critique of another writer's work. If "Triumph of the Moon" was simply a biased take on history unredeemed by any factual basis, I would feel content in letting it die in the obscurity normally destined for such a book. Unfortunately, "Triumph" has successfully undermined what little knowledge many Pagans have of their history, and the book continues to influence scholars of history and, especially, anthropology."Triumph's" greatest affront is not that it is copiously littered with errors--although it is. Virtually all books dealing with Pagan history contain at least a few inaccuracies, even if the writer is making a sincere effort to convey the truth. What makes "Triumph" unforgivable is that it repeatedly attacks prominent Pagans, living and dead, with information that simply is not true. In addition, Hutton overstates his theory that witchcraft is a modern invention, and presents it as fact, rather than opinion. Not only that, the author dismisses prior scholarship and advances radical theories without offering data to support his views--or he offers information that is unsubstantiated or demonstrably false.The response to "Triumph" and Hutton's other works in the Pagan communities has generally fallen under two lines. One group, swayed by Hutton's academic credentials and the book's publication by a university press, has accepted and publicized Hutton's conclusions without reservation. A smaller, more sophisticated group has become increasingly cynical, even dismissive, of books dealing with paganism coming off the academic presses, especially as Hutton's conclusions have been parroted uncritically by other scholars over a full decade.A book-length analysis refuting the profuse body of disinformation perpetrated by Hutton is sorely needed at this point, and Whitmore does a credible job. "Trials of the Moon" is cautiously researched and takes advantage of scholarship from non-English speaking countries. "Trials" is highly readable and easy to follow for anyone with a cursory knowledge of paganism. I would recommend it even for those who have not read "Triumph," as a lot of the false information perpetrated or recycled by Hutton has seeped into mainstream occult books.Trials of the Moon cannot be taken as a definitive rebuttal of Hutton's "Triumph." Whitmore overlooks many errors in Hutton's pre-1950 witchcraft history and at times gives Hutton the benefit of the doubt when he should be holding his feet to the fire. Whitmore gives Hutton a pass on post-1950 history, evidently unaware that Hutton's presentation of late 20th century American Pagan history, at any rate, is riddled with errors. I wish Whitmore had exposed more of the misogyny rampant in Hutton's works, but perhaps in the quotes provided this speaks for itself.In the interest of keeping the lines of historical research open, which is the aim of the book, it should be noted that Whitmore's conclusion that the New Forest coven was fashioned out of freemasonry and the Golden Dawn, rather than being influenced by them, is still on shaky ground. The origins of the coven have only been traced to the 19th century, and it is accepted that some members belonged to the other groups, but it's still a leap to say the New Forest coven (or covens) did not go back further or did not form out of earlier covens. I would have liked to have seen Whitmore equivocate a bit more about a point that should remain an open question.An annotated bibliography would have been a good addition to the book, but on the whole "Trials" should do a good job of "reopening the case." I hope Whitmore's book will help Pagans become better informed about our history.