Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Letters

Letters LETTERS Editors: I am writing both to congratulate you on the inauguration of your new journal and to take issue with some of the content and tone of parts of the first issue of your publication. First, there seems to be a bit too much Eliade "bashing" going on in your first issue, rather than any substantial contribution in terms of a new method or approach in the study of religion. Criticism of Eliade in and of itself is not bad-indeed, it is often to be invited-and I am certain that if he were alive, Eliade would graciously accept it. However, I find it disturbing that in this issue Eliade is lumped together by two of your authors with two amorphous (faceless and nameless) groups-his "fellow 'religionists"' (Robert Segal, "How Historical is the History of Religions?" MTSR 1/1 (1989), 2-19) and the "well-known 'Chicago school' of Religious Studies" and/or his "co- religionists" (Neil McMullin, "The Encyclopedia of Religion: A Critique form the Perspective of the History of the Japanese Religious Traditions" MTSR 1/1 (1989), 80-96)-who, we are led to believe, slavishly follow "Eliade Rex." Not only is it unseemly to attack Eliade posthumously in this way, both writers http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Method & Theory in the Study of Religion Brill

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/letters-Z7UyoZSD3T

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 1989 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0943-3058
eISSN
1570-0682
DOI
10.1163/157006889X00097
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

LETTERS Editors: I am writing both to congratulate you on the inauguration of your new journal and to take issue with some of the content and tone of parts of the first issue of your publication. First, there seems to be a bit too much Eliade "bashing" going on in your first issue, rather than any substantial contribution in terms of a new method or approach in the study of religion. Criticism of Eliade in and of itself is not bad-indeed, it is often to be invited-and I am certain that if he were alive, Eliade would graciously accept it. However, I find it disturbing that in this issue Eliade is lumped together by two of your authors with two amorphous (faceless and nameless) groups-his "fellow 'religionists"' (Robert Segal, "How Historical is the History of Religions?" MTSR 1/1 (1989), 2-19) and the "well-known 'Chicago school' of Religious Studies" and/or his "co- religionists" (Neil McMullin, "The Encyclopedia of Religion: A Critique form the Perspective of the History of the Japanese Religious Traditions" MTSR 1/1 (1989), 80-96)-who, we are led to believe, slavishly follow "Eliade Rex." Not only is it unseemly to attack Eliade posthumously in this way, both writers

Journal

Method & Theory in the Study of ReligionBrill

Published: Jan 1, 1989

There are no references for this article.