Perceptions of Scholarship in Contemporary Paganism by Christine Hoff Kraemer

Perceptions of Scholarship in Contemporary Paganism Christine Hoff Kraemer, Cherry Hill Seminary chkraemer13@gmail.com Presented for the Contemporary Pagan Studies Group American Academy of Religion Annual Conference 21 Nov 2011, San Francisco, CA Last year‟s publication of amateur scholar and Wiccan initiate Ben Whitmore‟s book The Trials of the Moon has revived—or perhaps merely continued—the heated debate about Wiccan origins and ancient Pagan survivals among scholars of Paganism and its practitioners. Whitmore‟s book advertises itself as a critique of Ronald Hutton‟s Triumph of the Moon, which argues that contemporary Pagan witchcraft is a twentieth-century construct with roots in art, literature, folk magic, and other elements of British culture. Hutton denies that Pagan witchcraft has anything substantial to do with medieval witchcraft, and considerably less to do with ancient Paganisms than has been popularly believed. Trials of the Moon responds with eighty-six pages of point-bypoint challenges to Hutton‟s claims. 1 Whitmore does not have training as a historian, but he attempts to systematically check Hutton‟s sources and offers alternative readings when he sees these sources as misread or misrepresented. As Whitmore states in the book, Trials is not an attempt to write history.2 Rather, it is a critique that he hopes will reopen the debate about Pagan survivals, which he sees Hutton‟s book as having prematurely closed. The resulting online tussle over Trials of the Moon has drawn attention to problematic Pagan attitudes about scholarship. Although these attitudes may be representative of wider American attitudes, the treatment of scholarship by Pagan practitioners is particularly significant due to that community‟s historical relationship with it. Margaret Murray‟s The Witch-Cult in Western Europe and The God of the Witches served as important sources of religious material for Wiccans in the mid- to late twentieth century and are still accepted as definitive by some practitioners, despite their fall from grace in the academy. Similarly, Marija Gimbutas‟ Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe provided a historical narrative of prehistoric, matriarchal Goddess worship to a generation of feminist Pagans in the 1970s and 1980s. Pagan practitioners have reacted furiously to later scholars who critiqued these books. Cynthia Eller and Ronald Hutton have been particular targets of this fury, although Eller remains sympathetic to Goddess worship, and Hutton has written about his own Pagan upbringing 3 and continuing sympathy with contemporary Paganism. 4 Wiccan initiate Donald Frew‟s 1998 article in the Canadian journal Ethnologies characterizes the flavor of many of these attacks.5 Frew has important primary research to present in this article; having examined Gerald Gardner‟s original “Ye Book of Ye Arte Magical” in person, he is able to critique Aidan Kelly‟s account of the book‟s contents. Frew identifies substantial misquotations in Kelly‟s account, including sentence-long additions and omissions. 6 This part of the article provides a clear service to the scholarly community by alerting it that portions of Kelly‟s Crafting the Art of Magic cannot be considered reliable. Frew distracts attention from his contributions, however, by interpreting other scholars as maliciously misreading primary texts and witchcraft-related scholarship. He assumes that when errors are made, they are the result of deep-seated political or religious prejudices rather than the results of limited time or resources. For example, Frew argues that the initial acceptance of Kelly‟s research was not due not to its being one of the first efforts of its kind (in other words, an attempt at a scholarly history of witchcraft), but rather that it was perceived as “being hostile to established Craft „doctrine.‟”7 In his criticisms of the work of Jacqueline Simpson and Ronald Hutton, casting suspicion on scholars‟ motivations is a primary rhetorical tool. He quibbles with Contemporary Pagan Studies Group American Academy of Religion Conference, 11/21/11 Kraemer—2 Simpson‟s readings of Margaret Murray, quoting both Simpson‟s summaries of Murray‟s views and directly quoting Murray herself. Frew presents Simpson as deliberately misreading and distorting Murray‟s accounts. Yet in the quotes he provides, his reading of Murray and Simpson‟s often strike me as two different, but possibly both supportable, readings of the text. Frew‟s primary disputes with Simpson are about the tone in which she describes Murray, not the facts on which she builds the thrust of her overall argument; in some cases, the two simply disagree on the relative significance of the evidence presented.8 Frew‟s arguments against Ronald Hutton are also largely based on apparent inconsistencies chosen piecemeal from fulllength books and attributed to “sloppiness,” “intellectual laziness,” or being “deliberately deceptive.”9 As Simpson and Hutton‟s rebuttals show, however, some of their areas of disagreement with Frew are potentially reconciliable when grounded in a more complete reading of the relevant literature, or they are simply a matter of emphasis. 10 For example, Frew sometimes cites other scholars as holding views that contradict Hutton‟s when, taken in context, the two actually have large areas of agreement (as is the case with Carlo Ginzburg).11 This kind of suspicion of scholarship owes something to a persistent American antiintellectualism, the most influential history of which is Richard Hofstader‟s 1964 AntiIntellectualism in American Life. Hofstader argues that American anti-intellectualism is historically rooted in deeply held American values such as egalitarianism and democracy. The notion that all activities of real value can be understood and performed by any ordinary person was wedded with an emphasis on action, practice, and intuitive decision-making. Contemplation and deliberation were framed as ineffectual and disengaged, likely to interfere with the essential work of getting things done. The influence of nineteenth-century evangelical religion also led Americans toward heart-centered rather than head-centered values. Among amateur witchcraft Contemporary Pagan Studies Group American Academy of Religion Conference, 11/21/11 Kraemer—3 scholars, there is often an implication that practitioner status makes one better qualified to do scholarship on witchcraft than being trained as a scholar. Frew, for instance, repeatedly emphasizes his immersion in the community and his personal connections with historical figures in the contemporary Craft,12 and he also challenges (via David Hufford) the idea that a believer‟s account of a religion is necessarily less accurate than a critic‟s. 13 Later, he also denies that professional scholars‟ work is any more rigorous than that of non-professionals. 14 Factual errors, or sometimes simply differing interpretations of the facts, are presented as being grounded in prejudice.15 Rather than taking debates seriously as intellectual disagreements, Frew frames them as thinly veiled battles over matters of faith and the heart. Lest I give the impression that I am condemning Frew and other amateur Pagan scholars by implying that their attitudes are anti-intellectual, however, I‟d like to back up for a moment and emphasize that there is much to admire in what Hofstader labeled “anti-intellectualism.” Egalitarianism and an emphasis on accessibility are hardly values that educators should reject. Nor is it unreasonable to point out that one‟s intellectual beliefs do not exist in a void separate from one‟s political philosophy, cultural background, and family and community loyalties. As was thoroughly explored in the collection Researching Paganisms, there can be distinct advantages to being a scholar who is also a community insider, because an insider can bring a depth of understanding based in experience to a critical study of a community—a perspective that an outside observer cannot fully share. Insiders must be much more self-reflective than outside observers when presenting their scholarly work, of course, or they may accused of being mere advocates and lacking critical distance from their subject of study. Yet the status of being an insider or an outsider is ultimately of limited relevance when evaluating the quality of scholarship. As Graham Harvey writes, “If what I write is recognizable to Pagans as a reasonably Contemporary Pagan Studies Group American Academy of Religion Conference, 11/21/11 Kraemer—4 accurate reflection on their religion and to scholars as an interesting contribution to critical reflection seeking understanding of religiosity, then my work is scholarly” 16—regardless of insider or outsider status. Volumes such as Researching Paganisms take the issue of scholarly methodologies for participants very seriously, and I see this as evidence that there is a place in Pagan Studies for practitioner-scholars. What is problematic about harshly written articles such as Frew‟s, however, is the way they attempt to engage in scholarly conversation without learning the expectations of the scholarly community. Ben Whitmore‟s tone in Trials of the Moon is somewhat more respectful than Frew‟s. Although he sometimes suggests that Hutton misreads his sources in a manipulative fashion, 17 he is more careful to highlight his areas of agreement with Hutton. Both Frew and Whitmore assert that it is legitimate and valuable to correct other scholars‟ errors, and with this I agree. Frew‟s primary research in particular is extremely valuable. Yet both demonstrate a lack of awareness of scholarly conventions—or, at least, a lack of awareness that they are not engaging in scholarly conventions. In an exchange with me on Patheos.com, both writers affirmed their belief that scholarship should be a collaborative and collegial endeavor where all involved seek the truth. Strangely, both also regarded Hutton and Simpson‟s rebuttals to Frew‟s 1998 article as being full of unprovoked malice. Whitmore went so far as to call Frew‟s article “mild-mannered” and stated that it was “complimentary” toward the scholars to which it responded.18 Some fundamental disconnection is happening here in terms of what amateur scholars perceive as appropriate rhetorical tactics versus what is considered polite, collegial prose in academic circles. Additionally, amateur scholars seem not to be dialoguing with professional scholars in advance of publishing their attacks; whether this is a matter of lack of access or lack Contemporary Pagan Studies Group American Academy of Religion Conference, 11/21/11 Kraemer—5 of awareness of venues such as conferences is unclear, although with so many scholars now publishing blogs on the internet, it seems unlikely that access is the fundamental problem. Regardless of the cause, amateur Pagan scholars are attempting to enter scholarly discussions without an accurate idea of how their writings sound. Whitmore, for instance, does not realize that to extensively criticize another scholar on such relatively minor points without offering an alternative theory would seriously embarrass and perhaps discredit a professional scholar. His 86-page treatment takes The Triumph of the Moon as its only frame of reference as it veers wildly between time periods and geographical areas, and by his own admission in the conclusion, he makes no broad historical argument. His definition of “research” seems to have been limited to checking Hutton‟s footnotes and reading fragments of texts, rather than familiarizing himself thoroughly with the relevant body of literature or delving into primary sources. In a blog comment elsewhere, Whitmore celebrates historians like Hutton for their efforts, then explains that “I don‟t present my own version of history [because] it would be an enormous amount of work.”19 The irony of this statement is evidently lost on Whitmore; he sees his critique as partially an homage to Hutton. Yet it is not a scholarly mode to publish catalogs of fact-checking results; one usually either raises critiques in a book review that also highlights its contributions, or does the research to put forward a new theory in either an article or a book. It is simply not considered polite, not part of scholarly etiquette, to offer extensive criticism without then offering something positive in return. However, Whitmore saw his critique itself as a contribution and, unaware that by scholarly standards he was being rude, he seemed perplexed by its negative reception among scholars. Interestingly, Whitmore frames his work as challenging Hutton‟s because he sees Triumph as having a cult-like status not unlike Murray‟s or Gimbutas‟ work. Pagans heap Contemporary Pagan Studies Group American Academy of Religion Conference, 11/21/11 Kraemer—6 contempt on other Pagans who doubt Hutton‟s conclusions, he says, and he even suggests that Triumph is responsible for driving Wiccans from the Craft; at one point, he relates an anecdote where two young Wiccans abandoned their religion because Hutton had shown them they “were living a lie.”20 I think he‟s on to something in the assertion that a scholarly book can have a cultlike status: Pagans sometimes grant far too much authority to scholarship and will defend it (or attack it) as if it were scripture with prescriptive impact. In some ways, it seems, particular pieces of scholarship actually serve the Pagan community in the same role as scripture does in other religions. Biblical archaeologists, for example, experience some of the same paradoxes as Pagan scholars do in their communities. Archeologists who publish data that appears to contradict the Bible may be attacked by believers as attempting to undermine the Christian faith, while on the other side of the coin, biblical archeologists whose research affirms the historical accuracy of the Bible may find themselves being written off by the scholarly community as uncritical advocates. Debates—and fears—about whether such scholarship undermines or supports the Christian faith, and the political purposes that it might be put to, muddy the scholarly waters and can complicate the process of funding studies and publishing data.21 In both Christian and Pagan communities, there are texts that are treated as sacrosanct, and so they become sites where conflicts over authority are centered.22 This recurring pattern around Pagan studies scholarship suggests a need for open and explicit discussion around the purpose and practice of scholarship, for the benefit of both scholars and non-academic practitioners. When Whitmore lays responsibility at Hutton‟s door for “driving young people from the Craft,” he overlooks the Pagan community‟s lack of skepticism when reading scholarship. Scholarship is theory supported by evidence, not scripture, and it should not be treated as such. Nor should scholarly criticism of a theory automatically be Contemporary Pagan Studies Group American Academy of Religion Conference, 11/21/11 Kraemer—7 interpreted as an attack on the existence of the group who holds that theory. Pagan scholars are too often cast in one of two destructive roles: as “experts” whose research can legitimate Pagan communities, or as debunkers whose work threatens to destroy the very communities whose study is their bread and butter. The fact that scholars are often not considered part of Pagan communities, though many are practitioners themselves, suggests that Pagan Studies has a serious public relations problem. Although some Pagan Studies scholars have begun to deliberately address a more general Pagan audience in blog posts and other Internet venues, there is no widespread assumption that it is scholars‟ responsibility to educate practitioners about academic culture or standards. But in a time where liberal arts funding is being cut, tenure-track jobs are disappearing in favor of parttime and adjunct positions, and the publishing world is undergoing a complete overhaul, scholars of the liberal arts must deliberately justify their work to the public. The fact that debates over scholarly books such as Triumph of the Moon rage on Internet bulletin boards and blogs is clear evidence that Pagan practitioners are buying and reading scholarly books as a part of their religious practice. With publishers demanding that authors identify potential markets for their books, scholars need to take Pagan practitioners seriously as a major audience for their work. While I do not argue that Pagan scholars should pander to their audiences by becoming less critical, I see a greater need for what Ernest Boyer calls a “scholarship of engagement,” 23 a scholarship that is self-consciously in service to the public. Scholars of Paganism might begin this engagement by explicitly explaining their aims and methodology in book introductions, as well as by speaking and writing for a general audience about scholarly assumptions, etiquette, and collegiality. Whitmore in particular mentions a tendency among Pagans to react to Triumph of the Moon as if it were the final word on the subject—a book written to shut down discussion Contemporary Pagan Studies Group American Academy of Religion Conference, 11/21/11 Kraemer—8 on an issue, rather than a contribution to an ongoing discussion. He thinks of his book, Trials, as an attempt to “reopen” a prematurely closed debate—yet in the scholarly world, the debate was never completely closed. The fact that the public has no easy access to scholarly journals, publications, or conference proceedings no doubt contributes to the impression that the matter is a closed one. I celebrate the fact that some Pagan Studies scholars are already regularly communicating with the general public in blogs and other accessible media. Yet I have to admit my disappointment that some scholarly writers, even those who see themselves as writing for the public, continue to respond to the challenges of amateur scholars with contempt and dismissiveness. The fact that amateur scholars are attempting to engage in scholarly debate without understanding either the purpose of scholarly debate or its conventions certainly represents a failure, but I would more readily assign that failure to our educational system than consider it a personal failing of Pagan practitioners. The fact that Pagan practitioners are so eager to engage scholars, even if they do so in a confrontational manner, provides opportunities for dialogue and education. In turn, scholars have an obligation and opportunity to avoid combative rhetoric amongst themselves and to instead model collegiality and respect; students and wouldbe scholars are observing us for cues. I would like to see a Pagan Studies community that is at least as invested in the education and edification of Pagan practitioners as it is in making a contribution to the wider field of religious studies. To that end, Pagan Studies scholars could frame their publications knowing that practitioners will be a significant part of their audience. In his recent personal response to Trials of the Moon, Ronald Hutton remarks that American readers lacked the historical context that British readers of his book had; since most British witches were already skeptical of the Contemporary Pagan Studies Group American Academy of Religion Conference, 11/21/11 Kraemer—9 narrative of the Burning Times and were familiar with an earlier essay by Hutton published in Paganism Today, they read Triumph of the Moon as an affirmation of Pagan witchcraft, not an attack on it.24 American and Australian readers, however, lacked this context. Hutton has since written in several different venues attempting to contextualize the historical study of witchcraft for non-specialists and highlighting the collegial debates he has engaged in with Carlo Ginzburg and others on the subject.25 Although the omission in Triumph of contextualizing information for an American audience is a misstep that was difficult to see in advance, Pagan Studies as a whole now has ample evidence for regional differences in audience. This knowledge can shape the amount and content of background information that is given in book introductions. Explaining the reasoning behind methodological choices (and at times, explaining methodology itself) and explicitly framing scholarly works as part of ongoing conversations can help to demystify academia for general readers and create a more welcoming environment for amateur scholars to dialogue with professionals. Such a model of community engagement is one potential gift that Pagan Studies might offer the liberal arts as a whole in this time where liberal arts scholarship is increasingly seen as irrelevant by the public. I‟d like to close with a quote from Ronald Hutton‟s rebuttal to Don Frew‟s 1998 article, as it offers a positive vision of where Pagan Studies might go. Hutton writes: I would like to see two different developments in the field during the next ten years, closely linked and complementary. One is the evolution of an international academic community with a common interest in the history of modern paganism, trading information and ideas and arguing propositions within an atmosphere of friendly rivalry and mutual support. The very first signs are now present that this is starting to emerge. The other is the parallel development of an international Contemporary Pagan Studies Group American Academy of Religion Conference, 11/21/11 Kraemer—10 community of independent pagan scholars operating in the same manner and cooperating with the other. […] Wicca possesses a famous, powerful and admirable ethical commitment, that each person should be free to do as she or he wills as long as no harm is done to others in the process. If applied to the world of Wiccan scholarship, it might reap particularly rich dividends. 26 If Pagan Studies wishes to make a positive contribution to the wider community, professional scholars must take Pagan practitioners seriously as partners in the work of scholarship. They are the consumers of our books, the subjects of our study, our challengers, and our supporters, and there is no mechanism by which they will come to understand the positive role of critical scholarly approaches to religion unless we treat them as respected students and potential peers. Rather than dismiss Pagan practitioners as anti-intellectual, perhaps we can hear the term “antiintellectual” as Hofstader might have read it: as demanding scholarship that is more accessible and more relevant to practitioners‟ lives. 1 Ben Whitmore, Trials of the Moon: Reopening the Case for Historical Witchcraft (Auckland, NZ: Briar Books, 2010). 2 Whitmore 84. 3 Ronald Hutton, “Living with Witchcraft,” Researching Paganisms, ed. Jenny Blain, Douglas Ezzy, and Graham Harvey (Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 2004) 173. 4 Ronald Hutton, “Writing the History of Witchcraft: A Personal View,” The Pomegranate: The International Journal of Pagan Studies 12:2 (2010): 242, <http://www.equinoxpub.com/index.php/POM/article/view/10684/8082>. See also “Interview with Professor Ronald Hutton of the University of Bristol, United Kingdom” by Caroline Tully, Necropolis Now May 20, 2011, <http://necropolisnow.blogspot.com/2011/05/interview-with-professor-ronaldhutton.html>. 5 Donald Frew, “Methodological Flaws in Recent Studies of Historical and Modern Witchcraft,” Ethnologies 20:1 (1998): 33-65. Reprinted with different pagination and revisions at Patheos.com, <http://media.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/Documents/FOLK-ART-8V1.pdf>, February 8, 2011. Subsequent references to pagination will refer to this latter version of the document. 6 Frew 1-4. 7 Frew 4. 8 Frew 5-8. 9 Frew 10. Contemporary Pagan Studies Group American Academy of Religion Conference, 11/21/11 Kraemer—11 See Jacqueline Simpson, “Scholarship and Margaret Murray: A Response to Donald Frew,” Ethnologies 22:2 (2000): 281-288 (available with different pagination at FindArticles, <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6914/is_2_22/ai_n28817809/>) and Ronald Hutton, “Paganism and Polemic: The Debate over the Origins of Modern Pagan Witchcraft,” Folklore 111:1 (2000): 103-109 (available with different pagination at Find Articles, <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2386/is_1_111/ai_62685559/>). 11 Hutton, “Paganism and Polemic” (FindArticles edition) 5; see also “Writing the History of Witchcraft” 249. Ben Whitmore also misunderstands the relationship between Hutton and Ginzburg‟s work in the introduction to Trials. 12 Frew 16. 13 Frew 4. 14 Frew 24. 15 Frew 10. 16 Graham Harvey, “Pagan Studies or the Study of Paganisms? A case study in the study of religions”, Researching Paganisms, ed. Jenny Blain, Doug Ezzy and Graham Harvey (New York: Altamira, 2004) 247. 17 For example, see Whitmore 80. 18 Comments section of Don Frew, “2011 Introduction to Key Frew article,” Patheos.com, 2011, <http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/2011-Introduction-to-Key-Frew-ArticleDonald-Frew-02-08-2011.html>. 19 Ben Whitmore, Comment on December 11, 2010 on “Arguments without Evidence—or without Ethos?” by Chas Clifton, Letters from Hardscrabble Creek December 10, 2010, <http://blog.chasclifton.com/?p=2111&cpage=1#comment-2272>. 20 Whitmore, Trials 3. 21 Gordon Govier, “Biblical Archaeology‟s Dusty Little Secret,” Christianity Today (Oct 2003), <http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/october/33.36.html>. 22 Although reactions to Ben Whitmore‟s book and Ronald Hutton‟s response to it were what recently stirred up discussion among professional scholars about their relationship to the Pagan community at large, the same dynamics of suspicion and polemical attacks have occurred within the scholarly community as well. For example, after the publication of her Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory, Cynthia Eller was attacked by scholarly spiritual feminists with all the vehemence of the orthodox condemning a heretic. She was accused of providing ammunition to feminism‟s conservative detractors, of deliberately currying favor with patriarchal institutions in order to get an academic job, and of attempting to discredit both spiritual feminism and contemporary Paganism in general (see, for example, Max Dashu, “Knocking Down Straw Dolls: A Critique of Cynthia Eller's The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future,” The Suppressed Histories Archives, 2000, <http://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/eller.html>), while her book was condemned as a dangerous tool for reinforcing the status quo (see Kristy Coleman, "Matriarchy and Myth," Religion, 31 [2001]: 247263, <http://www.cynthiaeller.com/coleman_review.htm>). An attitude of “if you are not fully with us, you are against us” permeated the discussion, despite Eller‟s statements in support of the spiritual feminist community (see Cynthia Eller, “A Response from Cynthia Eller,” Belili Productions: Featuring the Documentary on the Life and Work of Marija Gimbutas, May 28, 2003, <http://www.belili.org/marija/c_eller_response.html>). 23 Ernest Boyer, “The Scholarship of Engagement,” Journal of Public Service and Outreach 1:1 (1996): 11-20. 24 Hutton, “Interview” and “Writing the History of Witchcraft” 240. 25 See particularly Hutton, “Writing the History of Witchcraft” 249. 26 Hutton, “Paganism and Polemic” (FindArticles edition) 8. 10 Contemporary Pagan Studies Group American Academy of Religion Conference, 11/21/11 Kraemer—12 Bibliography Boyer, Ernest. “The Scholarship of Engagement.” Journal of Public Service and Outreach 1:1 (1996): 11-20. Govier, Gordon. “Biblical Archaeology‟s Dusty Little Secret.” Christianity Today (Oct 2003). <http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/october/33.36.html>. Harvey, Graham. “Pagan Studies or the Study of Paganisms? A case study in the study of religions”, Researching Paganisms. Ed. Jenny Blain, Doug Ezzy and Graham Harvey. New York: Altamira, 2004. 241-255. Hofstadter, Richard. Anti-intellectualism in American Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966 [1963]. Hutton, Ronald. “Interview with Professor Ronald Hutton of the University of Bristol, United Kingdom.” By Caroline Tully. Necropolis Now May 20, 2011. <http://necropolisnow.blogspot.com/2011/05/interview-with-professor-ronaldhutton.html>. -----. “Living with Witchcraft.” Researching Paganisms. Ed. Jenny Blain, Douglas Ezzy, and Graham Harvey. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 2004. 171-188. -----. “Paganism and Polemic: The Debate over the Origins of Modern Pagan Witchcraft.” Folklore 111:1 (2000): 103-109. Available with different pagination at Find Articles, <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2386/is_1_111/ai_62685559/>. -----. “Writing the History of Witchcraft: A Personal View.” The Pomegranate: The International Journal of Pagan Studies 12:2 (2010): 239-262. <http://www.equinoxpub.com/index.php/POM/article/view/10684/8082>. Simpson, Jacqueline. “Scholarship and Margaret Murray: A Response to Donald Frew.” Ethnologies 22:2 (2000): 281-288. Available with different pagination at FindArticles, <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6914/is_2_22/ai_n28817809/>. Whitmore, Ben. Trials of the Moon: Reopening the Case for Historical Witchcraft. Auckland, NZ: Briar Books, 2010. Contemporary Pagan Studies Group American Academy of Religion Conference, 11/21/11 Kraemer—14