Editing Margaret Murray (section)

====Early criticism====
{{Quote box
|width = 30em
|border = 1px
|align = right
|fontsize = 85%
|title_bg =
|title_fnt =
|title =
|quote = Surely, discussion of what confessedly is so unripe is premature. When Miss Murray has broadened her study to all the lands where she can find the "cult"; when she has dealt with documents worthier the name of records than the chapbooks and the formless reports that have to serve us for the British trials; when she has traced back witch-sabbath and questionary through the centuries of witch and heretic hunting that precede the British; when she has trusted herself to study the work of other students and fairly to weigh their conclusions against her own in the light of the further evidence they may adduce: then perhaps she may have modified her views. Whether she changes or confirms them, she will then have earned the right to a hearing.
|salign = right
|source = George L. Burr, 1922.{{sfn|Burr|1922|p=782}}
}}

Murray's theories never received support from experts in the Early Modern witch trials,{{sfn|Hutton|1999|p=198}} and from her early publications onward many of her ideas were challenged by those who highlighted her "factual errors and methodological failings".{{sfn|Eliade|1975|p=152}} Indeed, the majority of scholarly reviews of her work produced during the 1920s and 1930s were largely critical.{{sfn|Sheppard|2013|p=169}} George L. Burr reviewed both of her initial books on the witch-cult for the ''[[American Historical Review]]''.{{sfnm|1a1=Burr|1y=1922|1pp=780–783|2a1=Burr|2y=1935|2pp=491–492}} He stated that she was not acquainted with the "careful general histories by modern scholars" and criticised her for assuming that the trial accounts accurately reflected the accused witches' genuine experiences of witchcraft, regardless of whether those confessions had been obtained through torture and coercion.{{sfn|Burr|1922|p=781}} He also charged her with selectively using the evidence to serve her interpretation, for instance by omitting any supernatural or miraculous events that appear in the trial accounts.{{sfn|Burr|1922|p=782}} W. R. Halliday was highly critical in his review for ''Folklore'',{{sfnm|1a1=Halliday|1y=1922|2a1=Hutton|2y=1999|2p=198}} as was E. M. Loeb in his review for ''[[American Anthropologist]]''.{{sfn|Loeb|1922|pp=476–478}}

Soon after, one of the foremost specialists of the trial records, L'Estrange Ewen, brought out a series of books which rejected Murray's interpretation.{{sfnm|1a1=Oates|1a2=Wood|1y=1998|1p=28|2a1=Hutton|2y=1999|2p=198}}
Rose suggested that Murray's books on the witch-cult "contain an incredible number of minor errors of fact or of calculation and several inconsistencies of reasoning". He accepted that her case "could, perhaps, still be proved by somebody else, though I very much doubt it".{{sfn|Rose|1962|p=56}} Highlighting that there is a gap of about a thousand years between the Christianisation of Britain and the start of the witch trials there, he argues that there is no evidence for the existence of the witch-cult anywhere in the intervening period. He further criticises Murray for treating pre-Christian Britain as a socially and culturally monolithic entity, whereas in reality, it contained a diverse array of societies and religious beliefs. He also challenges Murray's claim that the majority of Britons in the Middle Ages remained pagan as "a view grounded on ignorance alone".{{sfn|Rose|1962|pp=56–61}}

Murray did not respond directly to the criticisms of her work, but reacted to her critics in a hostile manner; in later life she asserted that she eventually ceased reading reviews of her work, and believed that her critics were simply acting out of their own Christian prejudices to non-Christian religion.{{sfnm|1a1=Thomas|1y=1971|1p=516|2a1=Simpson|2y=1994|2p=90|3a1=Oates|3a2=Wood|3y=1998|3p=28|4a1=Hutton|4y=1999|4p=198|5a1=Noble|5y=2005|5p=5}}
Simpson noted that despite these critical reviews, within the field of British [[folkloristics]], Murray's theories were permitted "to pass unapproved but unchallenged, either out of politeness or because nobody was really interested enough to research the topic".{{sfn|Simpson|1994|p=94}} As evidence, she noted that no substantial research articles on the subject of witchcraft were published in ''Folklore'' between Murray's in 1917 and [[Rossell Hope Robbins]]'s in 1963. She highlighted that when regional studies of British folklore were published in this period by folklorists like [[Theo Brown]], [[Ruth Tongue]], or [[Enid Porter]], none adopted the Murrayite framework for interpreting witchcraft beliefs, thus evidencing her claim that Murray's theories were widely ignored by scholars of folkloristics.{{sfn|Simpson|1994|p=94}}