MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W168500297

Paganism and polemic : The debate over the origins of modern pagan witchcraft

2000· article· en· W168500297 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ronald Hutton

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFolkloreHistoriographyColonialismHistoryLiturgyHistory of religionsClassicsSociologyFolkloristicsReligious studiesLiteratureAnthropologyPhilosophyArt
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Opening of the Debate In 1998, the first issue of the newly renamed journal of the Canadian Folklore Association, Ethnologies, included an article by Donald H. Frew, a Californian terming himself an independent scholar writer. It represented a historiographical landmark, being only the second contribution to one of the key scholarly debates in the history of contemporary religions, that concerning the origin of Wicca, the first of the various traditions of modern pagan witchcraft to emerge into the public eye (Frew 1998). During the 1980s, British writers working within that tradition, such as Janet and Stewart Farrar and Doreen Valiente, had done valuable work in providing anecdotal material for its history and commencing the textual analysis of its liturgy (Farrar and Farrar 1981; 1984; Valiente 1989). Systematic discussion of the issue, however, only began in 1991, with the publication of a book by another Californian, Aidan Kelly. This made an analysis of certain key texts to suggest that Wicca had essentially been created by one man, a retired colonial official called Gerald Gardner, who had in turn been heavily influenced by the thesis propounded by the Egyptologist Margaret Murray. Murray had argued that the people persecuted for the alleged crime of witchcraft in early modern Europe had been practitioners of a persisting pagan religion, then being finally exposed and rooted out by Christian authorities. Gardner declared that the religion concerned had survived in secret until the twentieth century, and that he was drawing the attention of the public to its continued existence, and to its rites and beliefs. Aidan Kelly argued that Gardner had himself founded the religion to which he was giving this publicity (Kelly 1991). Donald Frew's essay is essentially a defence of Murray and Gardner against Dr Kelly and two other writers who have questioned their claims, Jacqueline Simpson and myself. He produces no decisive piece of evidence in support of this enterprise. Instead, his principal tactic is to attempt to catch out the three of us in mistakes of detail, and so to convey the impression that our work as a whole is unsound--at least in this area--and can therefore be disregarded. By this negative process, he suggests that Murray and Gardner have been unfairly treated, and so should be given credence. At no point does he grant any of his victims credit for virtues in other writings, or leave them any dignity as scholars; the destructive effect is apparently intended to be total. This being so, the temptation to reply to his attack is pretty well irresistible, but a rejoinder based on mere rebarbative pedantry would be tedious to many readers. Instead, I regard the opportunity as one to review the main points in contention over the origins of modern pagan witchcraft, and make them clearer for those not directly concerned in the debate. In the process, perhaps, some insights can be provided of the way in which history is written in this field, or even in general. The issues cover three very different areas of research--ancient paganism, the early modern witch trials, and modern witchcraft--and each will be treated here in turn. That they can be surveyed in the journal of the society of which Margaret Murray was once president, and Gerald Gardner once a council member, provides a very neat sense of historical continuity. Ancient Paganism and Wicca: General Considerations In 1991, I drew a stark contrast between Wicca and what is known of the pagan religions of ancient Europe, when concluding a survey of the evidence for those in the British Isles (Hutton 1991, 335-71). This had the effect of emphasising the essential modernity of Wicca and its distance and difference from the paganism of antiquity. As such, it was inevitably opposed to Donald Frew's purpose, which is to stress instead the similarity of Wicca to ancient paganism, and therefore both to advance the claims of the former to be a representation of the latter and to present the possibility of a direct process of transmission between them. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,047
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,102

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0120,055
Communication savante0,0130,008
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,221
Écart entre enseignants0,207 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations19
Publié2000
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesTravaux en français237 207