Richard Kieckhefer, in his foreward to the edition I read, makes a decent point regarding A Razor for a Goat: at the time, given the information available, Razor could be seen as a revolutionary, overturning-the-old-order work. With time, and the appearance (and, in one important case, disappearance) of more evidence shedding further light on events, it's less revolutionary, more revisionary — a step away from the earlier theories, but only just a step.

Rose is at his best when he's attacking Margaret Murray's theory of the European witch-cult as a representation of continuous pagan survival, pointing out areas where her theories run afoul of Occam's Razor. Spots where, with lack of any concrete evidence, her constructions multiply the number of coincidences and complexities needed over simpler interpretations and theories.

He's at his worst, however, when he tries to formulate alternate theories for the witch-hysteria of the Middle Ages. So often he comes close to the truth, but shies away — never willing to take that final step and discount the entire theory of the witch-cult, and thereby coming up with his own theories that, to borrow a phrase of his, are in need of shaving. He's not helped in this regards by the fact that, due to the period when this work was written, he relies on outdated and occasionally even unknowingly on forged evidence. (Revelations that, in the latter case, wouldn't come to light until a few years later.)

As the first major step away from the theories of Murray and company, it's an important historical work. As a source of history, of potentially valid historical theories, it's complete and absolute rubbish. At most it's a one and a half to two star work, but it gains an extra half to full star because I'm willing to admit to occasionally being a petty man, and I'll never say no to watching the theories of Murray (and Frazer, and Graves) getting a good kicking. ( )