Talk:Mircea Eliade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Additions/Changes

I take issue with the deletion of the references to Yakov Rabinovich's work from the legacy section of this article. Rabinovich, whose works are available online and may be easily consulted through the links which were deleted with the references, has in fact systematically applied Eliade's archetypalism in two books, "Faces of God" and "The Rotting Goddess." The removal of these legitimate references was an act of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.245.176 (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


Criticism of Elliades Shamanism "Kehoe is highly critical of Mircea Eliade's work. Eliade, being a historian rather than an anthropologist, had never done any field work or made any direct contact with 'shamans' or cultures practicing 'shamanism'. According to Kehoe, Eliade's 'shamanism' is an invention synthesized from various sources unsupported by more direct research."

-Bill July 26, 2007

Yes, Bill, I kept it in the text, moved it to another section (instead of leaving it is a separate section tied to nothing), and asked you if you could please indicate what pages the relevant criticism is on. Dahn 05:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Could I add a word? If Kehoe's criticism is that he is an armchair theorist, that is true, but most of the founding fathers of the discipline were, until functionalism. Great field workers like Edmund Leach applied the airchair theorizing of Claude Lévi-Strauss to some considerable effect to their work. Eliade couldn't do field work in Siberia and Central Russia because it was under Soviet control, in any case. But he did read a very large number of 'field' reports, like those of Radloff and Shirokogoroff. His achievement in revitalizing a neglected subject, and stimulating the massive research that followed, was and remains notable. Nishidani 06:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
(1) ‘conforms himself’ is slightly awkward in English, perhaps. Might one not say ‘to which man conforms, assimilating his particular experiences to the received archetypes of his religious tradition.’?

The following point might help as well.

(2)‘Eliade rejects, on many occasions, a monocausal, ‘liberal-rationalist’, ‘scientific reductionism’, (and also sociological and psychological reductionism), which either ignores or denies the specific, original meaning or ‘intention’ of a phenomenon.’ Adrian Marino, L’Herméneutique de Mircea Eliade,’ tr.Jean Gouillard, Gallimard, Paris 1981 p.60 (=Adrian Marino,Hermeneutica lui Mircea Eliade, Cluj-Napoca,1980)Regards Nishidani 09:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess the passage on Kehoe's criticism is fine the way it is now. However, I'd still like to see some specific page numbers for each of the claims we're drawing from that book. After all, those are strong claims (although rather true ones) against Eliade's category of "shamanism". Yet, until I can get my hands on a copy of Kehoe's book, I'll leave that passage alone.

With regard to Nishidani's suggested quote about Eliade's anti-reductionist attitude: that's a great quote, and it belongs in the article. However, it belongs in the section on Eliade's general view of religion, or in a new section on "Eliade's methodology", not as a response to criticisms of Eliade's Shamanism. (I'm not sure if that was your intention, Nishidani; I'm making this point just in case.) --Phatius McBluff 18:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Phatius McBluff I put the few things I know in here because I have only read the text once, and don't know where to place eventual contributions. I trust you blokes can find, if some of it is useful, where to best slip it in. On Kehoe, I am not familiar with the work, but as quoted, it is rather question-begging. Eliade, like his brilliant Polish predecessor M.A.Czaplicka (1914), wrote a theory of 'shamanism', a phenomenon involving a vast global range of tribal cultures by surveying an immense amount of ethnographic material. That theory is, in my personal understanding, defective (particularly for the ideological undergirding it presupposes) - all theories of this kind are - but for all that heuristically powerful. The value of a theory historically lies in its capacity to capture specialist attention, focus in from a fresh perspective on a category hitherto ignored and regenerate thinking on an issue. In this sense, Eliade's work was seminal, if not palmary. It helped see structural continuities over vastly different areas, from Ireland to South America. Even today, his positing of structural identities between yogic techniques and shamanic praxis(Le Yoga.Immortalité et Liberté, 1954) not only put a ragbag of unnconnected material into coherent form, but brought out in relief striking cross-cultural symmetries, and still stands as an important contribution to the subject (Geoffrey Samuel, Civilized Shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan Societies, Smithsonian Institute, 1993 p.371). Anyone can do field work: few come up with strong and productively original concepts. I say this as someone (a nobody, but still) who has been from the start suspicious of Eliade's hidden agendas. Honour where honour is due.Nishidani 19:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Nishidani, I couldn't agree with you more. Eliade's tendency to lump diverse cultural phenomena together into simplistic categories (e.g., cyclic time, High God, "shamanism") is both his weakness and his strength. It's his weakness because, as you note, such categories are over-generalizations, and thus untrue. It's his strength because, as you note, such categories are useful for organizing information and providing a framework for further research (much like Levi-Strauss's "structural" approach to everything under the sun). It's a pity that last post of yours was a talk page post and not a passage from a scholarly article; it would have been a perfect counterbalance for the "criticism" section. I'll keep my eyes open for such a quote to add to the article. --Phatius McBluff 18:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait, wait. I think I've found the perfect passage that captures exactly what we were discussing. It's from Wendy Doniger's introduction to Eliade's Shamanism. If incorporating it into the article, I would write something like this:

Although Wendy Doniger sees many of Eliade's hypotheses as over-generalizations, she notes that his "boldness" allowed him to see patterns "that spanned the entire globe and the whole of human history". Whether true or not, she argues, Eliade's theories are still useful, "as starting points for the comparative study of religion". She also argues that they have been able to accommodate "new data to which Eliade did not have access".

--Phatius McBluff 19:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I added that passage (with minor changes) to the article. I added it right after the 1st paragraph of the "Criticism" section. --Phatius McBluff 19:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Phatius McBluff. Nice to see that Wendy Doniger quote, which I was unfamiliar with. Thanks. She's controversial but interesting scholars are. By the way the quote from the French trans. of Adrian Marino's work, re his anti-reductionism, echoes something Eliade himself said:
'These spiritual documents - myths, symbols, divine figures, divine figures, contemplative techniques, and so on - had previously been studied, if at all, with the detachment and indifference with which nineteenth-century naturalists studied insects. But it has now begun to be realized that these documents express existential situations, and that consequently they form part of the history of the human spirit. Thus, the proper procedure for grasping their meaning is not the naturalist's 'objectivity', but the intelligent sympathy of the hermeneut. It was the procedure itelf that had to be changed.(Eliade's italics). For even the strangest or the most aberrant form of behavior must be regarded as a human phenomenon; it cannot be interpreted as a zoological phenomenon or an instance of teratology.This conviction guided my research on the meaning and function of myths, the structure of research symbols, and in general, of the dialectics of the sacred and the profane.' M Eliade, Preface to No Souvenirs: Journal, 1957-1969, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London and Henley 1978 p.xii

To posit that an 'existential situation' can be extraterritorial to historical circumstances and man's individual formation within them was an extraordinary claim to make, and in this he was soothed, if deleteriously, by Jung's own influence.

(2) If you're curious about part of the reason why this doesn't function,why historical factors impact on myth, see Luc de Heusch,Le Rwanda et la civilisation interlacustre, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1966 esp.272ff.,(of course the historical sociology of witchcraft since the 60s has definitively torn the thesis apart anyway) and why sociological factors are crucial to understanding spiritual phenomenon (like possession, for Eliade,shamanism's inverse), why women historically must have been prominent (for example, words for male shamans are etymological isolates often in Turkic-Altaic languages, whereas those for women seem to derive from a common proto-linguistic form. This troubles Eliade's thesis.) see I.M.Lewis,Ecstatic Religion1971 passim esp.pp.49ff.Even that work is problematical, what book ain't, but . .Keep up the good work, chaps Nishidani 20:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing the question from the section titles — I have not seen them used for this purpose before. Presumably, this has the risk of making it seem that Eliade did actually overgeneralize, have fascist influences in his work etc.; so what I did instead was to leave out the section about the conference from the "Criticism" section, and group all others under that title. Oh, and I also changed "right-wing" to "far right" in the title - "right-wing" could just as well mean "neoliberal", "liberatrian" etc.

What we could consider in the future is creating a final section on "Legacy", grouping stuff such as portrayals, names given to places etc. - we could move the conference part there (it is all posthumous anyway), and add the sections about him in cinema and him as a fictional character. What do you guys think? Dahn 05:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Dahn & User:Phatius McBluff. I have made bold to correct the date in the bibliography re Kirk, Myth: Its Meaning & Functions in Ancient & Other Cultures. which was given as 1974, instead of 1970. The slip is probably due to the fact that his later volume, Greek Myths, Penguin Harmondsworth came out 1974. I might note that Kirk in this second work has several pages (pp.63-65) strongly critical of the Eternal Return-nostalgia for origins theory. It may fit Aborginal rituals of mythic evocation, but is out of synch with the patterns of Amerindian myth. Secondly, he dismisses the relevance of Eliade's theory to Greek myth, which overwhelming is not one of a recursion to the creative era of origins. It's well worth reading. Another point worth scanning the critical literature for is links between Eliade's foundational myths of cities, and the myths of return evoked by annual reenactments, and Malinowski's Charter Theory of Myth.
Ooos, didn't notice this clarification. Will change back. But please note that unused works do not count as references (the other Kirk book was not used, and it was also confusing - the notes just said "Kirk", and it was no longer clear "which" Kirk). We can re-add it to the "Further reading" section, but am I to understand you want to use it in the future? Because the best thing to do is to add a source once it was used. Dahn 09:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Dahn Yes, there is a problem in designations of the kind you have noted and now emended. We speak of conservative right and extreme right, just as no one would wish to confound Theodor Adorno or Max Horkheimer with members of die rote Kapelle. Undoubtedly Eliade was attracted, precisely because of his theory of a recursion of creative origins, to the primordial sources of identity, to the rebarbative mythological charters of Nazism and Fascism, which evoked either the wild tribal past of Germany, or the institutional origins of Roman empire as established by historical culture heroes in Italy. Jung was an early admirer of this, and must have had considerable impact on Eliade. But, just as Evola had an arcane, highly aristocratic-conservative spiritual twist to his fascism, so did Eliade. Evola for example, did put out an edition of the notorious Tzarist forgery The Protocols of Zion, which fitted the regime's turn towards classic anti-semitism, indeed anticipated it (it was not in fascism's original programme), but he is on record also as suspending judgement as to whether the bizarre scene of conspiracy in it was true, as fascist authorities made out. To him, even if the document was not (and indeed it wasn't)true historically, it was authentic spiritually. This seems close to Eliade's approach. They had strong fascist leanings, but were for an aristocracy of the spirit, shared by 'initiates', something which stood in tension with the mechanisms of mob rhetoric employed by regimes they otherwise supported. Sorry for the editorializing. Nishidani 09:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I very much agree with your assessment, Nishidani. I think though that the problem here was mainly one of cultural patterns: I notice that many Anglo-Saxons tend to use "right-wing" when they mean "far right". Plus, I think that Eliade merely having a "nationalist and right-wing" influence in his work, as opposed to the current form, was not and could not have been the matter for controversy. Dahn 09:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Dahn My apologies. I left the 1974 book in there expecting it would eventually be used, because it elaborates and adds detail to his 1970 remarks. I.e.
'myths and rituals, which in Australia are rather closely linked, can be said to actualize these beings and to bring the Dreamtime into the present with potent and fruitful results.
'Eliade generalizes this conception without subjecting it to the stringent test of applying it to the majority of myths in many different cultures. He simply reiterates . .The idea of the Dreamtime is a unique conception; other myths cannot necessarily be seen in this light. Amerindian myths, for example, are not evocative or nostalgic in tone, but tend to be detailed and severely practical. Many are about animals who acted as inventors or 'culture heroes' in(p64 Kirk 1974)/a mythical epoch that was, admittedly, the time when things were put into order. But since then the animals have turned into men, and the distinction between men and animals has become a firm one. That in itself reduces the effectiveness of myth-telling as a reconstitution of primordial power. Moreover many Amerindian myths manifestly have other and quite different functions; I am thinking particularly of the Amazonian myths considered in detail by Lévi-Strauss and of the North-west coast myths collected by Boas, which contain foundation and charter acts, folktale motifs, trivial aetiologies, serious structural implications...
Greek myths, too, utterly fail to support Eliade's universal theory. The whole range of Greek heroic myths lies outside any true 'creative' era.'p.65 (=Kirk The Nature of Greek Myths 1974 pp.64-5) and concluding:- 'Eliade's idea is a valuable perception about certain myths, not a guide to the proper understanding of all of them' p.66. Since I stuff up these wiki protocols, not being intimately familiar with them, perhaps I should just drop occasional notes only in here, so others can look, use or ignore.Nishidani 09:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I would jump at the chance of summarizing this in the article and, of course, re-add the reference as I do that. This is unless, of course, you would like to do it yourself. I am equally willing to copyedit any fragment you would consider adding yourself for minor stuff like format and protocols (using a single format for references etc). The only, so to say, objections I had were that, at that moment, the reference you provided clashed with another one and it was not itself used in citations. Not knowing what its purpose was, I thought it best not to leave it in the text for now.
Btw: the citations currently look the way I prefer them. This is merely because I was the first one to add a significant number of citations to the text. That said, if there are any objections to them, feel free to change the format throughout or ask me to do it myself. I only changed newer citations to the same format only because it was easier than changing mine (there were more of mine at any given stage). Dahn 17:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I just remembered some books by Furio Jesi in my library, and consulted them. Furio Jesi,(a leading Italian expert on mythology and right wing culture, and prof.of German literature at the University of Palermo before his death) in his Cultura di destra, Garzanti 1979 pp.38-49 translates (p.38)from Dosarul Mircea Eliade., Toladot. Buletinul Istitutului Dr.J.Niemirower n.1 Jan-March 1972 p.24 the anti-Semitic quotation (used by Bellow in Ravelstein, by the way) from Buna Vestire (17 Dec.1937), translating 'stirpe' for what the present page here gives as 'nation'. Now 'stirpe' in Italian is stronger than 'nation/nazione' in that, while with the latter it refers to 'birth, lineage', the basic sense is 'stock' as in a racial blood-line or stock.Perhaps the Rumanian text ought to be controlled on this. Niemirover's dossier was compiled to embarrass Gershom Scholem for having contributed to a Festschrift in Eliade's honour (J.M.Kitagawa and C.H.Long (eds.) Myths and Symbols in Honour of Mircea Eliade, Universoty of Chicago Press,1969)Nishidani 13:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. The original uses "neam", and the translation is mine. The term is relatively ambiguous, and I tended to translate it as "kin". However, it also commonly refers to "nation" (albeit mostly done in nationalist contexts), so I did not want to impose a reduction of its meaning. Given the precedent you note, I'm going to change it to "kin" here as well. I think that "kin" is better than "stock", since its original meaning is in reference to family relations (a meaning it still keeps in wordings like "neam cu mine" - "a relative of mine"). But I may be wrong, in which case feel free to correct me. Thank you. (I am not sure if you know Romanian; I don't want to exclude the possibility that you do, and neither do I want to assume, so apologies if this explanation is redundant.) Dahn 17:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No I don't know Roumanian, though I can read a fair amount of it, since I know Latin and several languages and dialects derived from it. The original quotation in question was not hard to follow, but niceties of use pass me by. As to the earlier point. I don't trust myself to interfere in your collaborative work here, since I might muck it up, and only cause you to have to reposition whatever I contribute. Anyone is free to examine, manage, edit, quote sources I cite, if it fits the development of the page. If anything I note here serves that purpose, I would be delighted that some of you found it useful.Regards Nishidani 17:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I added a bit of what you so generously presented here. Please check for accuracy and proper phrasing. I think more details from Kirk should go in the related Eternal return (Eliade), but that is for you and Phatius to decide (I'm clearly the neophyte in this context). I also think that a sentence on the case made by Jesi (or, rather, the issue reflected in his essay) should make its way into the article - but I assume that the work details more than this particular case (and could therefore be used for more than that).
Generally, I tend to either use works that I myself have had full access to or had the relevant parts summarized, or that mention the topic in passing. That way, I can be sure that the authors' point was not arbitrarily sectioned, and it looks good to cite much from a source that says much. As a side note, I'm dissatisfied that this article only cites Eliade's Autobiography once (and for a detail that is of minimal importance), when it could be a source for many, many things. Using google books for that would be inconsistent, and I do not have access to the entire book (let alone the edition cited), but only to criticism of parts of it through Ornea and others.
I also have a suggestion: it is possible to illustrate this article with supporting material already available, but I am not sure how orthodox this would be. What I had in mind was, for example, topping the "Shamanism" section with an image such as this one or this one (or both). Next to the mention of Moses and the sacred space, we could have an image of Moses of the prophet taking off his shoes - the most iconic one is, I'm guessing, the Ravenna mosaic (I have searched for the image on Wikimedia Commons, but it does not seem to be there). Thoughts? Dahn 19:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Dahn That is a very sensible procedure, to give priority to written materials, available in libraries. So much of wiki material comes from secondary net sources that are in turn unreliable, so that many articles in here, written only by those who use search engines, are, to say the least, odd.
As to the autobiography, I have in my own library

-Les Promesses d'équinoxe: Mémoire 1, 1907-1937 traduit du roumain par Constantin S-Grigoresco, nrf Gallimard Paris 1980
-Fragments d'un journal, Nrf Gallimard Paris, 1973 tr.Luc Badesco
-Fragments d'un Journal, 1970-1978' tr.C.Grigoresco, Nrf Gallimard Paris,1981.

which makes for roughly 1,450 pages. I have marked and annotated all three, but read them when they came out. It would take some time to review them all and retrieve material. But if you ask me specific things, I'll look for them. I give you both a brief account of material from Jesi in the next few days, a summary and quotes.
(2) as to shaman materials,(a)chamansiberiano.jpg 336 x 672 pixels - 40.3kB webpages.ull.es/users/.../s1cham.html or (b) noll.jpg

200 x 281 pixels - 27.7kB www.desales.edu/default.aspx?pageid=1610 (just put 'tungus shaman' in yahoo search and then click on 'images' and you will get both), look more appropriate. I can't recall the specific image in Ravenna, though Ive been to most churches there, so can't help in that regard. Let me know apropos the Diary what you would be interested in seeing checked, and I'll try to do so.Nishidani 20:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What I had in mind was adding generic detail about his life (for example, backing the info already present - stuff on his childhood, exile etc.); we could use this to back up citations already present (it would be weird to have citations from Eliade's Autobiography as rendered in other sources and cite the Autobiography itself as a source on other facts; whereas having the quotes from two sources could only better this article). On the other hand, you could go through just one of the works you cite and add relevant details on various issues, at your convenience.
There is another possibility that we can explore. At some point, I added detail on what Eliade is known to have hidden about his past or to have simply embellished. This was sourced from Ornea, who compared various autobiographical texts by Eliade with facts stated by other sources, pointing that Eliade could not have been right (for example, I expanded a bit on Eliade's claim to have been picked up by the authorities because they selected his name from among contributors to a certain newspaper, when in fact Premier Călinescu is documented to have singled him out as a propagandist for the Guard). These details were removed, citing a wiki policy (namely, WP:UNDUE). I did not persist, although I objected to the interpretation at the time, and instead summarized the general idea as "Eliade's own version of events, presenting his involvement in far right politics as marginal, was judged to contain several inaccuracies and unverifiable claims." Now, and this is where it gets tricky, I could re-add text elaborating on this part of the controversy, if the other editors (you included) agree that it may be relevant to do so. I could list them on this talk page as a preliminary step, and, given that Ornea cites Eliade, we can trace Eliade's original statements as well, and put your sources to yet another use.
I could not find the first picture you mention, but the second one does not appear to be public domain or fair use, so I'm afraid it cannot be uploaded. If a more Tungusic is what you would prefer, Commons has this to offer. Any good?
The Ravenna Moses image can be seen here (note that this picture too is not public domain). Dahn 21:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, the Moses, etc. pictures are a good idea. I'll leave adding them up to you, though.

Nishidani, Dahn is 100% right: that Kirk quote about Eliade applying Australian Dreamtime concepts to Greek and Amerindian myths is perfect for Eternal return (Eliade). I notice you also added a brief summary of it to Mircea Eliade. Presumably, the summary should be slightly longer and more in-depth in Eternal return (Eliade), since Eternal return (Eliade) is more focussed that specific topic. The Kirk summary should go in the "Criticism" section, added onto an already-existing paragraph about Kirk's criticisms of the eternal return. Again, I'll leave that up to you for now - although I'll swing back for some minor editing after you're done.

Sounds good?

By the way, can either of you get your hands on a book called Reconstructing Eliade: Making Sense of Religion by Bryan S. Rennie? I think it actually provides a comeback to some of Kirk's complaints. (Or maybe I read that somewhere else.) At any rate, it's a first-class analysis of Eliade's ideas. (It also discusses Eliade's anti-reductionist attitudes.) I should be able to find it in about a month, once I'm back at college; but I'm just letting you know about it if you're interested. --Phatius McBluff 22:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add the shaman image for now, and attempt to find one of Moses taking off his shoes. Expanding on the Kirk quote in the related article is exactly my suggestion, and I'm glad we agree on this as well. There is little chance I can get my hands on Rennie's book, though. Dahn 23:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some other to dos

In the future, we should find detail on his wife (wives?) and his cause of death. I know it sounds trivial, but this article is going places, and, generally, articles are only considered complete when they have this sort of data. Though it is not half as trivial as what that I can source in a minute of so, about the adolescent Eliade eating bugs as a means to exercise his willpower and other such stuff :) - although they were published by a reliable source, and though some of them feature in his own works, they are most likely unencyclopedic.

A section on his fiction works. I've been meaning to work on it for a while now, but needed some thorough critical material. What I have handy is the short version of George Călinescu's history of Romanian literature, which I have used on various articles in the past. Alas, for all its importance, Călinescu's volume is rather hostile to Eliade, and fails to offer a coherent overview of Eliade's contributions. It could be very helpful, but it needs to be compared with another such analysis. I did find one in Eugen Lovinescu, who, incidentally, was rather sympathetic to Mircea Eliade (this is probably because Eliade was a modernist and urbane in his selection of settings). I do not own Lovinescu's book, but will do my best to find it and use it).

Since I brought this up: where should the section on his fiction go? Do we follow chronology, and thus place it above the Scholar section, or do we guide ourselves by overall importance and move it before Controversy? I think both could work just as well, so I'll let you guys decide. Dahn 23:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

These suggestions are fine by me. The text ideally should be succinct, but detailed. I see no reason why Eliade's eating bugs to strengthen his willpower can't go in. The German saw runs: 'Der liebe Gott steckt im Detail". God is in the details, and not infrequently one understands more from an anecdote like that about a man that what a whole dreary biography will tell you. Dr.Johnson once got into a carriage where a lady was already seated, and she said 'Sir! You smell!" He quipped back, 'No Madam, you smell: I stink." In that one short scene, inimitably evoked with laconic humour, you have his ungainliness, untidiness, failure to wash, his lack of raw offence, since wit saved him: his brilliant sense for the nuances of the language. His irony, his self-deprecation never undermining his sense of merit. His sympathy for the underdog of which he was one for a long time, against the fastidious pretensions of a class cushioned from want, and ready to make the underclass feel the sting of their poverty by unnecessary rebuke.
I think a full section on his fiction would be wonderful. 'Under scholarship' perhaps, and before 'Eliade in fiction??. Brief synopses of novels in chronological order are required to fill out the life. I've always desired to read the novels, but have never chanced on any translation of them. I suspect there is more of Eliade in them, than in his technical books.
Whether sources are sympathetic or not to Eliade shouldn't worry us. All we should do is have our eyes on the quality of the information purveyed. One can dislike Eliade and much of his work, and still find it highly suggestive and useful (if only at times for the footnotes!)

We've no need to hurry. Each in his own time. Nishidani 12:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, in my opinion, his fiction should go after his scholarship. It may have come first chronologically, but most people are probably interested in scholarship when they read an article on a dead professor. --Phatius McBluff 20:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both, and sorry for the delay in replying. As suggested, I added the bio details I could source into the text (loved the Johnson story and comparison, btw), and will do so for the "fiction" part in due time (indeed, there is no need to hurry). And, of course, I'll do it in the place both of you suggested.
To tie some loose ends: the exact problem with Călinescu is not that it is critical, but that it is so to the detriment of his own narrative. It is easy to discern what he thinks about Eliade's work in general, but the arguments about the books themselves are too scattered and inconsistent for that book alone to give an overall image of Eliade's work (as opposed to quoting its verdicts among those of others). For comparison, Ornea (who is a source here) is at times very critical of Eliade, but he also constructs full arguments and presents events as they unfold (abundantly quoting Eliade while at it). Also for comparison, Lovinescu discusses Eliade's style and themes before stating what his opinion of them is. In the end, I would want to cite as many such important interpretations as possible - but, alas, the overview is harder to find than the opinions. Dahn 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some stuff I found

I found these Romanian-language links which provide good detail, biographical as well as (in some cases) theoretical. The info is intertwined, and needs to be added to more than one section, and I have not looked through them thoroughly. I'm posting them here because I plan to use them soon, and this is the best place to pick them up from.

This Spanish translation from Culianu also caught my eye (I think it is Eliade's obituary). Dahn 10:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, I'm almost completely in the dark when it comes to Eliade's biography. I know some vague outlines, but helping you with the biography sections would mean basically absorbing all the stuff you already know to be able to then get at meatier issues. I wouldn't mind doing something of the sort, but I probably won't be working on this article for a while; I'm currently focusing my attention on the Christian mythology article. However, if you'd like me to give some help with spellcheck, advice on organization, etc., I'll be happy to lend an ear. Just let me know. --Phatius McBluff 17:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you got me wrong. The first thing is that these bio details are new to me as well. I posted them here because they clarify stuff this article needs, and they come in handy - I could've saved them on my computer, but that way I could not have used them from a different one (or I would've had to search them again). I will soon add them to the article, and I would indeed appreciate any copyedit from you (with thanks in advance) or anyone else.
Another thing is that at least one of the sources can potentially add a bit to the scholar section - which would most likely warrant your critical eye, as well as that of Nishidani, once I add the info. This is not only because the source is in Romanian, and not only because I am the novice here, but also because you can tell best how and where it should go in the text (if at all). The best way is for me to add them, and you to decide if it should stay.
Also, at least one source gives some detail on his literature. It does look important, but it cannot supplement an overview. In essence, I think it is easiest for me to add all the info at once (or in a tight succession of edits), together with something substantial on his fiction. Very much like I did in my original edits on the biography section.
More detail of the above qualifies as an additional view to list in the controversy section - we have an assessment by his nephew and biographer, Sorin Alexandrescu, in which he takes the middle ground. Basically, he says that Eliade was a fascist, but claims to be able to prove that he discarded this view during his stay in Portugal, as some sort of epiphany. I'm not sure exactly how important this POV is, and I'm going to have to check exactly how notable Alexandrescu is, but it may deserve inclusion. Dahn 18:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, in my opinion, the most important question isn't how notable Ale````xandrescu was in a general sense; the most important question is how notable he was to Eliade, and what position he was in to make claims about Eliade's personal beliefs. If I want to know whether Eliade believed in flying pigs, I'll take his stepfather's word over a professional historian's any day. Given that he's Eliade's nephew, he's a notable biographer regardless of whatever else he may be. His claim that he suddenly changed his view of Eliade may be nonsense, but it's still a notable claim, given who he is.
Also, thanks for clearing that up for me. I admit that I haven't even looked at the sources you posted yet: I've been busy on other articles. You say, "The best way is for me to add them, and you to decide if it should stay." That sounds like it would work best for me. Like I said, I'm sorta in the middle of some other Wikipedia work right now, and it's diverting a lot of my daily "computer time"; but I do have Mircea Eliade on my watchlist, so I'll immediately know when you add anything to the sections on Eliade's scholarship.
Out of curiosity, are we talking about more material on Eliade's specific theories, or are we talking about interpretations of Eliade's methods, underlying conceptual framework, etc.? There's a lot of the former and precious little of the latter in the article. That's a shame, because one could glean most of the former simply by skimming Eternal return (Eliade). While Eliade's repetitious writing style makes it obvious what his major theoretical claims are, there's some disagreement over exactly what Eliade meant by "hierophany", "the sacred", etc., and exactly how (or if) it all fits together into a coherent system. Also, subjects such as Eliade's "unempirical" and "anti-reductionist" attitudes deserve more discussion. --Phatius McBluff 21:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Er, perhaps I spoke too quickly. Just being Eliade's nephew obviously doesn't make Alexandrescu competent to discuss Eliade. If Alexandrescu never met his uncle, then he wouldn't have much of an advantage over a any other scholar in determining Eliade's views. What I meant to say was that Alexandrescu's published views about Eliade probably deserve at least a one-sentence summary, given that he was Eliade's nephew. --Phatius McBluff 22:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Those were exactly my concerns. I did a little more looking into, and Alexandrescu is apparently not a (for lack of a better analogy) William Patrick Hitler, but a professor at the University of Amsterdam, and a respected literary historian. The interview linked above indicates that he he researched Eliade's Portuguese Diary, and drew conclusions on it. In fact, I also found an article by another respected journalist (and political scientist), which is rather critical of Alexandrescu's conclusions, while explicitly praising his scholarly status. So this dialog may be worth a couple of lines.
The other (three-part) article discusses Eliade's contribution to "mythocriticism" (sic - I'm not sure how accepted this term is, but perhaps it has an equivalent).Addition: the article indicates that another term is preferred by Anglo-Saxons, and this should be, afaict Archetypal literary criticism I came across it because I searched for info on his wife (and a short section of it mentions her for some reason that is not clear to me yet). Iulian Băicuş, interestingly, seems to be the person who signed a currently-archived comment on this very page (as "Mayuma" - see his rowiki user page); it is just now that I realize it. He is an assistant professor at the University of Bucharest, and the magazine is the main literary publication in Moldova. It is an interesting piece, which crosses into two territories (Eliade's theories and his fiction works), seemingly focused on commentary. It also seems to be an original and innovative interpretation, so, with all due respect to Mr. Băicuş, I would not want to overexpose it (for fear of WP:UNDUE). I will try to summarize its main point(s) about Eliade, use the basic info the article provides, and, hopefully, I'll not be misrepresenting his position. Such situations tend to be delicate, especially when dealing with a delicate subject such as Eliade. I am also sure that Mr. Băicuş, if he is reading this, can summarize his own points best, or quickly correct me in case I should err. To answer your exact question: prima facie, it seems to be an interpretation of his concepts, drawing some parallels with the work of other Romanian and international authors.
I must stress again that I truly respect your contributions to wikipedia, and you are at liberty to prioritize your interest in other areas. As Nishidani pointed out, there is no sense of urgency involved here, and I myself am also involved in quite different areas as we speak. I'll also leave decision on the theoretical aspects to you and Nishidani, at your convenience, and will accept if any of my future edits in that area are rephrased or dropped altogether. This is just to clarify that the only certain merit of my contributions would be that they could build a bridge between foreign and Romanian scholarship, which, on principle (and perhaps only on principle) can eventually make this article one of the most thorough ones to have ever existed. Dahn 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Adding to my last comment: I noted in the past that there seem to be very different images of Eliade in Romanian and Western discourse respectively, in both the negative and positive aspects. This means that scholars insist on viewing Eliade from different perspectives, and communicate to different publics. For all the post-1989 dialog between the two cultures, it seems that this is still the case. This may help explain why it is rather difficult to discuss the two sources at once - I'm not an expert, but it may be that the common elements between your fine additions to the text and a random text from a random Romanian source have to be searched intensely (whereas that random Romanian source may elaborate on issues that were never brought up west of Budapest). Dahn 23:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There are also other things I came upon in the article that discusses Alexandrescu. Albeit not especially polemical, it does expose some, shall we say, inconvenient statements Eliade produced in his diaries (with direct citations). It thus becomes apparent that Eliade declared himself a genius greater than Goethe, but, almost at the same time, dismissed his own literary works as "stuff for high school students and little ladies". Eliade also proclaims himself a major philosopher - this may or may not be the case as far as neutrality goes, but Mr. Avramescu, the author of the article in question, equates this with a mathematician proclaiming himself a great soccer player. The piece features yet another perspective on the political controversy: in Mr. Avramescu's opinion, which he bases on his reading of the diary, Eliade's contacts with the Iron Guard were indeed hard to define, but this is because Eliade was opposed to the movement's Christian themes (this is, I'm guessing, backed by the "in any direction other than spirituality" quote in Ornea) and, at the time, considered himself a Nazi - with the paganism this implies.

I'm asking you guys: how much of this should make it in the text? The opinion expressed on his political beliefs seems both relevant and competent, but the other stuff is arguably just competent (and I would not know where to add in the text). Eliade's verdict of his own novels and short stories could also make it in the future section on his literature. A debate between the two authors about whether Eliade and Ortega y Gasset were friends (says Alexandrescu) or were not (says Avramescu) is probably trivial. As a side note: Avramescu does quote Eliade himself indicating that they only met twice, and strongly disagreed with each other, while stressing that, in this and other instances, Alexandrescu "reads one thing and records another" (or, to paraphrase more accurately the obscure Romanian mot he uses, "reads John and writes down Basil"). Dahn 23:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I know I said I was busy with other articles, but this discussion is becoming too interesting to ignore.
Eliade's statements about his novels, etc.-- I think any info on Eliade's own opinions about his work should take precedence over what other scholars say: even if Eliade's pronouncements about himself were complete nonsense, they would still be Eliade's own statements. The more of them you can add, the better.
"Eliade also proclaims himself a major philosopher [...] Mr. Avramescu, the author of the article in question, equates this with a mathematician proclaiming himself a great soccer player." This made me laugh. And it is, I think, true. Eliade's aspirations to philosophical recognition are obvious from reading his scholarly works on myth. He's the only mythologist I've read who feels the need to inject the words "existential" and "ontology" into discussions of Near Eastern fertility goddesses. Please add everything you can find about Eliade's philosophical interests: they're highly relevant to his scholarship (or at least his writing style), and they were obviously important to him. I'd prioritize this over adding more info on Eliade's politics (since we have a lot of the latter already).
Dahn, I highly recommend that you take a look at a book called Politics of Myth: A Study of C.G. Jung, Mircea Eliade, and Joseph Campbell by Robert S. Ellwood. Ellwood is a professor of religion who studied under Eliade. The section of Politics of Myth on Eliade is an intriguing examination of Eliade's life and how it influenced Eliade's thought. It's relatively light on cold, hard biographical facts (it won't tell us much that we don't already have in the bio section), but it provides an interesting perspective on the relationship between Eliade's experiences, his "far right" trends, and his scholarship. (It includes some anecdotes from Eliade's childhood and youth that really blew me away when I realized how much they influenced his interpretations of myth.) Yes, it does discuss Eliade's scholarship, but only lightly, only to help the reader understand Eliade's thought as a whole. The book explores the apparent connection between a romanticized view of myth and political views. (Jung, Eliade, and Campbell all thought myths held "ancient wisdom", and they've all been accused of having reactionary political views.) Once again, I should be able to get my own hands back on this book in a few weeks, but you might want to read it. I believe the bio section has moved beyond the point where we should be focussed on piling up more and more dry biographical facts: interesting perspectives like Ellwood's should be the order of the day. --Phatius McBluff 03:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions, and I'll be following them in due time. You comments raise an interesting prospect: we could, perhaps, add a section in the "Scholarly criticism" section to refer to Eliade's claim to have also been a philosopher. This provided, of course, that more authors besides Avramescu discuss this issue (I'm going to bet they do, but I have little access to such debates). I am going to make a conscious effort to get my hands on Ellwood's book, but this may take a while. What am considering is purchasing Ţurcanu's book, which, as far as I can tell, touches on subjects present in Ellwood, as well as other themes. I fully agree that there should also be commentary on biographical data, so I'll be looking into that as well. Dahn 11:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry McPhatius and Dahn. I haven't contributed as promised. Someone is endeavouring, it strikes me, to get me banned as 'anti-semitic'!! If he succeeds, then I will withdraw from wiki. It's been busy. Cheers. Nishidani 06:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you don't mind, but I looked a bit into the controversy, and I have to say that your edits were common sense - one should prioritize administrative over historical subdivisions (for the reader's sake - the where now as opposed to the where yesterday), and, as far as I can tell, the article as you found it conveniently prioritized a settlement over the main town for political gains. The "antisemitic" charge is, at the very least given your edits there, bogus - in fact, I have to say it is a straw man argument against you. I have note been able to locate the exact statement during my brief looking into, so I must take your word that it was voiced. While you did break the letter of 3RR (and, as far as I can see, those opposing you haven't), I must insist that a warning should have been assigned instead of a block - it is common sense to ensure that a person has been informed that the rule exists and that he or she knows what it means. I don't recall having ever edited an Israel-related article, so I will not comment on this or intervene any further. But feel free to quote what I said here in your defense, if you should find it useful. Nevertheless, in case you need more clarifications regarding this position, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I shall reply on yours. I also hope you don't take the decision of leaving this project - as disheartened as you may feel about this incident, and having your insight on this page as a sample, it seems to me that you are clearly a valuable contributor. Dahn 11:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, losing you would be quite a loss. I find the 'anti-semitic' charge laughable, but frankly, I couldn't care less what your personal beliefs are; what I care about in a Wikipedian is the quality of his or her contributions and suggestions. And your contributions to and suggestions for the Eliade article have been excellent. Good luck, and don't leave! --Phatius McBluff 17:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage?

Was he ever married? If not, would a "| spouse=none" line in the infobox be appropriate? Biruitorul 15:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

He was married twice. I was thinking of adding that in, but the sources for this info can also be used for many other topics, so I was going to add them all at once. Until then, what I could find is that his first wife was named Nina, and his second Christinel. There is a mention of Christinel's maiden name somewhere (I will look for it again), but I couldn't find a similar one for Nina. If I got it right, it seems that Nina Eliade died (when?), leaving Eliade to remarry. Christinel Eliade died in 1997. Hope this helps. Dahn 19:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Some searches have revealed that he married Nina Mareş, a divorced woman, in January 1934, also taking in her daughter Giza (perhaps adopting her?). Nina died of cancer near Lisbon on November 20, 1944. He married Christinel Cotrescu on January 9, 1950, and she died on March 9, 1998. Sources available upon request, or searching Google/Google Books. Biruitorul 19:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some material, as promised

In his book Mito (Myth), Mondadori, Milan 1980 Furio Jesi says this pp66-70 (The second part, translation, is wooden, to stick as closely to the original. Nutted out, it is quite perceptive and suggestive for understanding the latent leitmotivs which connect structurally Eliade’s approach to the wider esoteric undercurrents of the 20s and 30s (Evola’s Hyperborean north of masculine aristocratic vigor vs the decadent effeminate south, and Nazism occultism). This stuff may not be worth anything. I place it here for your dual considerations. More will follow from Jesi’s other book, and Eliade’s diaries (French versions) when I can muster some time.

Implicit in Eliade’s chapter in the Myth of Eternal Return dealing with ‘the terror’ of history’ is the idea that man’s authentic (true) reality lies in the experience of pain and joy, not in the capacity for thought that can oppose grief/pain by political actions that battle the roots of that pain. As a consequence, Eliade does not see man as a protagonist in history, past or future, but only a protagonist in those instants wherein either joyous exaltation or suffering is manifested, and in this it is the mythic paradigm which endows man on such occasions with the power to endure, and thus diminish, the intensity of that suffering. The example is the mythic exemplar of Christ the saviour, which embued man with the power to confront the pain of historical events without excessive suffering, (by identification with the paradigmatic myth of a God who accepted suffering). This is not accompanied by moral judgements, but it is evident that in this schema, there is a tacit judgement, according to which man’s ends are not those of the good, but rather those of a spiritual vitality (the opposite of spiritual sterility) which is nurtured and reinforced by an openness to the power of myth.’pp.66-7

(2) Eliade in his works distinguishes two basic metahistorical justifications of historical events. One concerns history understood as an eternal return, forever renovating myth, the other is history understood as a series of ever new theophanies, according to the judeo-christian religious experience.

There is an important distinction here: ‘In the Jewish religious experience, the obscure (oscuro) god forming the background of mythologies came forth onto center stage, as a directly agentive (acting) force within history, and thus lost part of his obscurity, almost to the point of acquiring a recognizable aspect/face. The state of the devout before such a god approximated ever more and more to an Heraclitean ‘state of wakingness’, and their defence against the sufferings imposed by history unfolded in the identification of historical time with ‘God’s time’. Hunted forth from what Eliade defines as “the paradise of the archetypes’’, man no longer counterpointed historical time to mythical time, and abandoned the static moment (ora) of myth for the intimate dynamic of theophanies. In advancing Christianity as the only religion capable of saving modern man from the pain of history, Eliade does not offer us an optimistic message. In his argument, the archetypes are indeed the lost paradise from which man is by now precluded/shut off: a paradise access to which required a ‘particular metaphysical valorisation of human existence’ consisting in the recognition of the human faculty of standing at the point where life and death intersect with each other. In consigning a value to this faculty, Eliade has in mind particularly man’s openness to the space of death that lies within life, and towards the flux of myth – an openness (receptivity) that almost wholly disappears, in his view, in the Judeo-christian religious world. The time of myth can therefore be said to be, for Eliade, the moment of death, in so far as it represents the eternity with which being human is commingled. It (myth= is a profound refuge, a secret room, where the spirit touches base with its proper reality and comes to know the perennial forms that are capable of harmonizing the objective and subjective: the archetypes. In the sphere of ‘mythological religions’’, myth does not imply an authentic participation in metaphysics, understood as a direct relationship with the hidden/obscure god, and, that is, with the unknown divine force which, to the eyes of the modern observer, glimmers beyond from the horizon of myth.’

Fascinating. I think much of this could be usefully incorporated into this (and some other) articles. However, this will require some consideration and looking back over articles.... I'll get back to you. Thanks for this! --Phatius McBluff 18:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
If you do find some of the stuff I put in here useful, tell me what points specifically, and I will give you the page number, and if you want it, the Italian text. The translation was very hurried, almost a paraphrase, but the content is as above.Hang on till I summarize his other book which has several pages, perhaps tomorrow at earliest. Cheers Nishidani 19:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Dahn
Have begun to reread the page, and noted in para 1, that among the languages Eliade had a reading knowledge of, Russian is not included. But in Shamanism he cites quite a few Russian sources, Tretyakov,Anisimov, Anokhin, Popov etc etc. as well as Swedish and Hungarian sources (the latter, the important work of Dioszegi). With the Swedish source he properly refers to the secondary report from which he gained his information. With Dioszegi, he properly relied on summaries D.supplied in his Russian and Germany articles. I always thought that Eliade read Russian sources, since he footnotes them directly?Nishidani 08:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't possibly tell you - the sentence was in the article way back when I found it, and users have played with it in various ways since. From my part, it is not certain that he knew any language in particular, since no sources I used in this article actually discuss that aspect of his biography (though, of course, it would be absurd to argue that he didn't know at least one foreign language). I admit I have not looked into this at all, and I wouldn't know where to start. What you say makes sense, but it is also [remotely] possible that he had someone summarizing the texts for him. Dahn 22:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Mister Dahn wrote:"Evola for example, did put out an edition of the notorious Tzarist forgery The Protocols of Zion" Since I 'm reading it in various discussions I want to precise this information isn't correct: The "Protocols of Zion" were edited by Giovanni Preziosi, and published by "La Vita Italiana" (directed and founded by Preziosi), Evola just wrote an introduction to the first italian edition of the text (1921).

Ialkarn

It was not I who wrote that (it was Nishidani), but I do see your point. This was, as you yourself seem to indicate, a side note, not specifically relevant to this article - though it may be useful in another article. Dahn 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I misread the date from the note cited in the volume by Evola, transferring it to Preziosi's text from another book Evola alludes to in the same note. My apologies. I didn't write that Evola put out an edition. That was how I found the text, as far as I remember. I merely clarified what Evola thought about the Protocols, by citing what he wrote in 1937. I have revisited the text, and slightly adjusted to take in the information about Preziosi's book's date. This of course is matter to be discussed on the Evola page.Nishidani 22:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, I wrote there about it already, thanks for the correction about the date of the introduction, which is linked with the last version (1937) and not the first one (1921), as I stated wrong previously. by Ialkarn

[edit] Nishidani's material and some other points

Bad news, Nishidani. I looked back over that Jesi passage you posted, and I'm not sure how I could usefully incorporate it into the article. It's basically talking about how the Abrahamic religions adopted linear, historical time -- which is already covered in the article.

There might be one way I could use this material, however. The Jesi passage discusses Eliade's attitude toward religion in addition to his theories about religion. For instance, the passage notes that Eliade regards "Christianity as the only religion capable of saving modern man from the pain of history" (because Christianity embraces linear, historical time), and that he sees "man’s ends [...] not [as] those of the good, but rather those of a spiritual vitality (the opposite of spiritual sterility) which is nurtured and reinforced by an openness to the power of myth". It would be a stretch to include such statements in the "scholar" section, considering that Eliade's profession was as a historian: it's more quasi-theology or quasi-psychology than a theory of religious history.

Therefore, Dahn, do you think it's a good idea to create a new section about "Eliade's philosophy of religion"? A little while ago, we discussed the possibility of addressing Eliade's philosophical aspirations. This could be a useful first step. When Eliade makes claims about how modern man's historical time leads to a spiritual sterility, etc., he shades much farther into philosophy than into science/history. (Basically, he sounds like a philosophically souped-up version of PBS's The Power of Myth series.)

I have plenty of info on Eliade's philosophical valuation of mythical thought as opposed to modern thought. I'll start there ... and we'll see where things go. You guys can help if you want, and it should be fairly easy: just find all the passages by or about Eliade that sound like Joseph Campbell on steriods. --Phatius McBluff 19:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I may add that this would also help clarify what some critics mentioned above are talking about. The main point, however, would be to start from scholarly works that make that distinction (ie between his work as a historian and his philosophic values), so it doesn't sound like we're the ones making it (though I presume that "info on Eliade's philosophical valuation of mythical thought as opposed to modern thought" also features that distinction explicitly).
I'm mostly caught up in another project at the moment, but I'll be available for comments, and I'll eventually add to the text myself. Dahn 19:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I've looked around a bit to see if Jesi could perhaps be included as an extra citation on what we already have, with what he uses as a summary of Eliade's work. On principle, I tend to use sources for all they say, even if that is already covered in the text. However, it seems that the text structure would make this awkward and redundant. It is finely cited as it is, and directly from the source, so I fully agree with you that Jesi's own conclusions, rather than his overview, belong in the new section. Dahn 19:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Not bad news. I don't now how to evaluate the material I can access in its appropriateness or not for the article, since you chaps know this area far better than I do. I'm just chucking things your way to see if anything I come up with from my book shelves can prove useful for the article. For all I know, it may be as useful as tits on a bull. So feel free to give the thumbs down on it. I'm way behind in keeping my word to get through Jesi's other book and the diary, and apologize, but will eventually drop an extensive note on what I've found. I haven't looked at the other articles, but there are 'low sources' Guenon is the primary one, and Heidegger the other, top shelf one, for analysing the premises in Eliade's 'philosophy of history' of course. Guénon is a key link between Evola and Eliade, since both took seriously his claim that the prehistoric elites with their esoteric and elect knowledge of the mystical, died out and their recondite theories were, on one level, lost, but were nonetheless transmitted to the hoi polloi in a distorted form, and through the disiecta membra of these degraded traces in folklore and popular culture, the modern adept can reconstruct the elitist knowledge of high antiquity (like Frazer in the Golden Bough, like Eliade in his Shamanism with its Evolian dialectic between the 'hyperborean' purity of the shaman in illo tempore, a solitary technician of the magical, and the decadent contaminations of that reality in southern plebeian cultures), and use it to restore the occult reading of the world that these same masses, the unconscious agents of transmission and historical contamination, are incapable of understanding. That is the essential political content of the right-esoteric cultural-conservative temper of those times. Heidegger's concept of historical post-Socratic time as an errant vagrancy from Being shares the same assumption, but unfolds its logic at an extremely refined level of discourse that dissembles the patent analogy with the esoteric world of aristocratic cultism flourishing in Germany's Wilhelminian and Weimarian subcultures.

I don't know how the scholarship on this stands, but Phatius, particularly, you could do well to relook at the Sartre/Lévi-Strauss debate on history (La penséee sauvage 1962, last chapter, which is profitable for understanding some of the paradoxes in Eliade's position, once seen in retrospect in terms of structuralism's latter battle against marxist historicity.

Don't feel at any rate any obligation to 'place' what I throw in here. Sorry for this rushed note. It's late and I'm three sheets to the wind from convivial boozing.Regards to you both. Nishidani 22:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New section added

Don't worry, Nishidani. I won't feel like I have to put your info in the article. However, your Jesi passage came in handy to reference a few sentences in a new section I added on Eliade's "philosophy of religion". Dahn, Nishidani, please glance over the new section and tell me what you think. Dahn will probably want to condense a few passages here and there; and in this case, I say, "Go ahead!" I wrote that section without thinking up an outline first, so it ended up being a bit long and free-wheeling. Right now, I don't have the energy to do a bunch of nit-picky editing of it. Maybe later... --Phatius McBluff 23:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Have reread, too rapidly perhaps, the article (overwhelmed by work here), and I think it should be blessed with a new assessment. It seems, from what little I understand of these things, to be very close to A grade class. A few quick remarks. One on the terror of history. I think it has been remarked that Eliade ignores Durkheim, but his imprint is frequent. On religion and suffering,(the point is not new to D of course. One could talk at length of 19th century studies of peripateia in Greek ritual and drama, the reversal from suffering to joy in mythic identifications by initiates with the god etc.), Durkheim wrote in his classic:-
'Le fidèle qui a communié avec son dieu n'est pas seulement un homme qui voit des vérités nouvelles que l'incroyant ignore.. Il sent en lui plus de force soit pour supporter les difficultés de l'existence soit pour les vaincre. Il est comme élévé au-dessus de sa condition d'homme; il se croit sauvé du mal.' (The person of faith who has been in communication with his god is not only a man who sees new truths of which the disbeliever is unaware . .He feels within more strength, both to bear up with the difficulties of existence and to overcome them. It is as if he were raised up and above his human condition; he believes that he has been rescued from evil.) Durkheim, Les formnes élémentaires de la vie religieuse'(1912) Presses universitaires de France, 1968 p.595 etc. (2) A lot of what Eliade says about reliving via myth, the past, recalls Malinowski’s several accounts of the creative mimesis of the legendary past in his Trobriand island monographs. Sorry to be brief. Finest regardsNishidani 21:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Eliade probably stole from Durkheim. Unfortunately, as I mentioned somewhere above, I could find only one source that discusses this:

"Mircea Eliade travesties Durkheim in The Sacred & The Profane (1957) by ignoring completely his fundamental contribution to the study of the sacred. Durkheim had made the sacred - profane dichotomy a central theme of The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912), [1] but Eliade passes over this in total silence, leaving you to suppose he is himself first in the field, with no previous account to consider."[11]

This is almost certainly correct, from what I've heard. However, the guy who made that website doesn't have any credentials, as far as I can see. And, as we all know, anyone can put up a website.

Actually, Eliade directly quotes Malinowski in Myth and Reality when he's discussing the "function" of myths:

"I cannot conclude this chapter better than by quoting the classic passages in which Bronislav Malinoski undertook to show the nature and function of myth in primitive societies.

"'Studied alive, myth ... is not an explanation in satisfaction of a scientific interest, but a narrative resurrection of a primeval reality, told in satisfaction of deep religious wants, moral cravings, social submissions, assertions, even practical requirements. Myth fulfills in primitive culture an indispensable function: it expresses, enhances, and codifies belief; it safeguards and enforces morality; it vouches for the efficiency of ritual and contains practical rules for the guidance of man. Myth is thus a vital ingredient of human civilisation; it is not an idle tale, but a hard-worked active force; it is not an intellectual explanation or an artistic imagery, but a pragmatic charter of primitive faith and moral wisdom. ... These stories ... are to the natives a statement of a primeval, greater, and more relevant reality, by which the present life, fates and activities of mankind are determined, the knowledge of which supplies man with the motive for ritual and moral actions, as well as with indications of how to perform them'"(pp. 19-20).

There's an obvious parallel between Eliade's idea of myth as a vehicle for "eternal return" to the primeval age, and Malinowski's idea of myth as a "narrative resurrection of a primeval reality". Unfortunately, if I stated that "Eliade's theory of eternal return was influenced by Malinowski", that would be "original research".

Perhaps we could make a section in the Eternal return (Eliade) article for "Similar academic conceptions of myth and ritual". We could put the Malinowski quote there, along with a quote I found from Joseph Campbell:

"The mythological image, the mythological formula, is rendered present, here and now, in the rite. Just as the written formula, E = mc2, here on this page, is not merely a reference to the formula that Dr. Einstein wrote on another piece of paper somewhere else, but actually that formula itself, so likewise are the motifs of the rite experienced not as references but as presences. They render visible the mythological age itself. For the [religious] festival is an extension into the present of the world-creating mythological event through which the force of the ancestors (those eternal ones of the dream) became discharged into the rolling run of time" (The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology, pp. 179-80).

That way, we wouldn't be explicitly stating that Eliade was "influenced" by those quotes, or that those quotes were "influenced" by Eliade: we would just be pointing out the parallel. --Phatius McBluff 03:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The additional information seems quite good. The only real major objection I have is the repeated rephrasing ("in other words ...", etc.). Maybe it would work best to just make the rephrased statement in the article, and include the exact quote in the note, if at all. John Carter 20:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I reworded to remove the recurrence of "in other words...", and tidied things up slightly. --Phatius McBluff 19:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'll be going dark

Hey Dahn and company--

Sorry I haven't followed through with those books I said I'd consult for the Eliade article. I can certainly access them, but I'm back in college now, and everything's been so hectic that I haven't had time to think much about Wikipedia. Dahn, I notice that you recently made numerous revisions to the Eliade article. I didn't have time to look through them all, but your editing of the sections on his scholarship seem fine.

Anyway, this is just to let you know I probably won't be doing much with the Eliade article for a while. I still have some things I intend to work on, but they'll have to wait till later. --Phatius McBluff 17:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying, Phatius. I too keep postponing the additions I promised, but I'll soon look for more essential material on his literary output. All in due time, and hope to see you back soon. Dahn 18:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rabinovich

I take issue with the deletion of the references to Yakov Rabinovich's work from the legacy section of this article. Rabinovich, whose works are available online and may be easily consulted through the links which were deleted with the references, has in fact systematically applied Eliade's archetypalism in two books, "Faces of God" and "The Rotting Goddess." The removal of these legitimate references was an act of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.245.176 (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no references in any serious context that would group the two of them in one sentence or paragraph - neither secondary, tertiary or, hell, primary. To be fair, there is one .ru site which, I see from the caption, yields a "Rabinovich Eliade", but I cannot check to see if it's the Rabinovich in question, given that Firefox tells me it is detrimental to my computer's health. Furthermore, Mr. Rabinovich appears not to satisfy any notability guideline, and the only one of his works I was able to find online appears to have nothing to with either Eliade or scholarly literature, but rather with bloggery. Furthermore, what was removed were not "references" (as opposed to this), but a large paragraph advertising Rabinovich. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and not a blog. Dahn 16:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: I also see the IP who signed the comment above has been pushing references from Rabinovich under the name "Rabinowitz" into several other articles. Well, users seem to have convened to have them removed in at least one article, and all the arguments against this source are to be found here. There is little left to say. Dahn 06:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I am Yakov Rabinovich. The objections to my work are not pertinent to the articles from which I have been excised, or to Wikipedia's criteria. I note:

I changed the spelling of my name from Jacob Rabinowitz to Yakov Rabinovich, and so I am now know in my publications and in my public appearances. I updated references to my work in Wikipedia as to spelling, for the convencience of readers.

I am not the same Jacob Rabinowitz who wrote the works of Talmudic Law, with whom I am confused in the list of my publications in the Ebionites discussion. I did write some poems about Canaanite gods which a friend published on her website. I do not see however that writing poetry, even bad poetry, should score against my credibility as a scholar. I did recieve my doctorate in Classics from Brown.

The links to my works are not to the website that holds them, but direct connections to the PDF files of the books cited. "The Rotting Goddess" has been reissued as part of a collection of my writings on the ancient world, "Junkyard of the Classics. The website in question, by the by, offers all of my work, as well as that of a number of other authors, living and dead, without charge, as PDF files. This kind of not-for-profit public service is not correctly characterized as self promotion or a "blog."

The number of factual errors in the way I have been characterized should alone suffice to reopen the question of my inclusion.

As to Eliade. I have systematically applied his theory of the archetypes in two books, "The Rotting Goddess" and "Faces of God" (This latters is now included in the collection of my writings on Judaism, "Stairway to Nowhere", and accessible without charge (like all my other works) at the Invisible Books website.

Eliade's archetypalism is, in its simplest description, the idea that there are groups of concepts and images that naturally appear together in human religious conceptions. Like the Moon, which brings with it ideas of cycle, death and rebirth, and which is represented in associated images such as circular shells, mazes, and water. Eliade himself used his archetypes, set forth encuclopaedically in his "Patterns in Comparative Religion," only to describe archaic religions. I applied his ideas to the study of Biblical Prophecy, and the mythology of Witchcraft.

Eliade's proteges did not emply his methodology (E.g., Wendy Doniger promptly declared for Structuralism). Eliade's main contemporary advocate, Brian Rennie, concerns himself with Eliade's politics, and does not not the interesting fact that Eliade has no successors in the path he spent a lifetime mapping out.

I have indeed systematically, though not uncritically, applied Eliade's ideas in a number of books, (including "Buried Angels," though there only in the final chapter where I analyze the symbolism of the archaeological finds). Since I am the only scholar to have done so, I think I deserve a mention in an article that seriously addresses Eliade's legacy.

As a final note, I am shocked to hear in Wikipeidia the criterion of "notability" invoked. The appeal to authority is not actually an argument, though it often prevails. I would ask fair-minded persons to consult —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.245.176 (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, I don't really understand how all this works. The continuation of the note should have been:

There is more. I am shocked to hear in Wikipeidia the criterion of "notability" invoked. The appeal to authority is not actually an argument, though it often prevails. I would ask fair-minded persons to consult

http://www.invisiblebooks.com/stairprepress.pdf

go to page 197, the beginning of the chapter on the symbolism of the center in Biblical literature. If you know of anyone who has applied the Eliadean archetypes as a tool of research as I have, I shall be very grateful to hear who this is.

Finally, I take exception to the characterization of my work as "scholarship lite." I am at pains to express my findings, however complex, in clear and simple language, considering the interests of the educated non-specialist, who wishes to be entertained as well as instructed. What makes it possible to fairly and easily evaluate my work (as I invite you all to) is not a point against my seriousness.

But I leave it to you. I have not the time to get into the trenches and duke it out with you all. I have written this much because I think well of Wikipedia, not least because it does not seem unimaginative and pedantic like the academic encyclopedias, which, if they tell nothing untrue, also never tell us anything new.


69.136.245.176 19:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC) I believe these tildes are a signature? Y.R.

You have just confirmed why the addition was self promotional material, and why it went against several other criteria (such as reliable sources, notability and neutrality). For one, there are no reliable sources concerning your interest, your expertise or even discussing your work, Mr. Rabinovich. Wikipedia editors don't generate reality, they record it. As far as I am concerned, the material is not suited and the discussion around it is over. Dahn 19:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So I was talking to a friend...

...and she mentioned that she came to this article looking for information about Eliade as an author of fiction and found that, as far as that aspect of his work, it might as well be a stub. I've never read any of his fiction, but she tells me that he was a good enough fiction writer that he'd be a pretty important writer if he'd done nothing else. In general, she's someone whose literary judgment I trust, so I presume she is correct.

My ignorance here is pretty thoroughgoing, so I have nothing to bring to the article on this front myself, but could someone who knows his work add a relevant section? - Jmabel | Talk 07:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I qualify as one of the people who know his work (I just know some of his work), but I'm more or less working on this myself. From my part, I'll come up with something based on critical commentary by New Years'. Dahn (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Just popping in again. I will be in no position to seriously edit this article until I get off on Winter Break. (I'm a college student.) But I'd be glad to look into his fiction writing (I'm not promising I will.) I think the problem is that the contributors to this article are mainly familiar with Eliade's academic work, so we tend to think of Eliade solely as an academic. Yes, perhaps we should look into Eliade's fiction-writing. But it would be even better if we could get someone who's already studied Eliade's ficting to work on this article. Maybe we could post a notice on the talk page of some Wikipedia project related to literature, asking if anyone can help with this article. Just a thought. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have access to two works by the leading Romanian literary historians George Călinescu and Eugen Lovinescu, and some of the links above also detail some aspects of his literature. It's going to take a while sourcing from them (they are rather large and I want to do a thorough job), but, from my part, I'll be adding to that section in a little while. Dahn (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible problem with our treatment of "eternal return"

This article defines Eliade's "eternal return" as the re-living of events (for instance, by ritually telling or reenacting myths). I based that definition on the following statement made by Wendy Doniger:

"He [Eliade] taught us that myths (and, to a great extent, rituals) retold and reenacted in the present transport the worshipper back to the world of origins, the world of events that took place in illo tempore, "in that time"; this basic idea of what he called (after Nietzsche) "the eternal return" has become a truism in the study of religions..." (Wendy Doniger, "Foreword to the 2004 Edition", Shamanism

I think it's fairly obvious that Doniger's definition of "eternal return" is equivalent to the one given in the article:

"One of his most influential contributions to religious studies was his theory of Eternal Return, which holds that myths and rituals do not simply commemorate hierophanies, but, at least to the minds of the religious, actually participate in them."

Doniger was/is Eliade's disciple, friend, and successor. Therefore, I assumed that her definition of Eliade's "eternal return" had to be correct. However, check out this statement by Eliade:

"I am delighted that this little book is to be republished in the Harper Torchbook series, especially because it has given me the opportunity to restore the original title. The manuscript that I began in May, 1945, was headed Cosmos and History. It was only later that I changed its title to Archetypes and Repetition. But finally, at the suggestion of the French publisher, I made Archetypes and Repetition the subtitle, and the book was published in 1949 as The Myth of the Eternal Return (Le Mythe de l'éternel retour). This has sometimes given rise to misunderstandings. For one thing, the archaic ideology of ritual repetition, which was the central subject of my study, does not always imply the 'myth of the eternal return.' And then too, such a title could lead the reader to suppose that the book was principally concerned with the celebrated Greek myth or with its modern reinterpretation by Nietzsche, which is by no means the case" (Eliade, "Preface to the Torchbook Edition", Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return [NY: Harper & Row], p. vii).

OK, now I'm confused. Could someone help me interpret this passage? Is Eliade saying that re-living mythical events isn't always a case of "eternal return"? If so, what constitutes Eliade's "eternal return"? By "the myth of the eternal return", does Eliade mean only myths like the Greek myth of eternal return, which says that history repeats itself in cycles? (You can ritually re-live myths without believing that history repeats itself in cycles.) This seems to be the interpretation of Eliade's "eternal return" given by this freelance scholar's website. But it directly contradicts Doniger's interpretation. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Phatius, please excuse my tardiness in replying. Now, concerning the issue at hand: looking over the quotes you provide, I must say I don't see a major contradiction. Before I elaborate, I should of course say that most of what follows is speculation based on a narrow window of evidence, so the issue could perhaps be investigated further. But, as we stand, what I see is Eliade dissatisfied by the fact that his idea was/could be understood as tributary to either the Greek myth it compliments, or to Nietzsche's terminology. As far as I can tell, he is merely stressing that it is neither, but not in fact saying that there is absolutely no similarity between the two/three terms. From what I gather so far, he says: "Yes, it is kinda like eternal return as coined by the Greeks - the idea is the same, but the analogy was always imperfect." Sounds right? Dahn (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, when Eliade says, "The archaic ideology of ritual repetition [...] does not always imply the 'myth of the eternal return'," you think he means specifically the Greek myth of the eternal return. That's my impression too. At any rate, since the only published definition of Eliade's eternal return that I have is Doniger's, I'll leave the article as it is unless I find some more info. Thanks for your two cents. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The recent edits

I've looked over the recent edits made by Dahn. In general, I'm impressed. The section on Eliade's fiction is well-written and easy to understand. I'm certainly not the person to judge how comprehensive it currently is. It's a pity that the section contains the analysis of only one critic; however, I don't know how many major lit. critics have written about Eliade's work.

I must admit that the section on Eliade's early philosophical writings confuses me somewhat. I have trouble seeing a coherent argument or organizational principle in that section (but maybe that's because Eliade's philosophical writings themselves lack those characteristics). Just to give an example:

"Călinescu recorded Eliade's rejection of objectivity, citing the author's stated indifference towards 'naivite', 'contradictions' and 'theoretical data', as well as his dismissive thoughts on mainstream philosophy (Eliade saw the latter as 'inert, infertile and pathogenic'). Thus, as Eliade argued, 'a sincere brain is unassailable, for it denies itself to any relationship with outside truths.'

The young writer was however careful to clarify that the existence he took into consideration was not the life of 'instincts and personal idiosyncrasies', which he believed determined the lives of many humans, but that of 'personalities'. He described the latter as characterized by both 'purpose' and 'a much more complicated and dangerous alchemy'. This differentiation, George Călinescu believed, echoed Ionescu's metaphor of man, seen as 'the only animal who can fail at living', and the duck, who 'shall remain a duck no matter what it does'. According to Eliade, the purpose of personalities is infinite: 'consciously and gloriously bringing [existence] to waste, into as many skies as possible, continuously fulfilling and polishing oneself, seeking ascent and not circumference.'

The first paragraph shown above makes sense, although it might benefit from some clarification. When it says that Eliade is "indifferent" toward "contradictions", does it mean that he thinks two contradictory statements can both be true? (In other words, is Eliade denying the law of non-contradiction?) When it says that Eliade denies "objectivity", does it mean that he denies the very possibility of making one's beliefs correspond to objective reality, or does it simply mean that he sees humans as hopelessly biased?

I honestly can't make heads or tails of the second paragraph. (Again, that may be Eliade's fault, not Dahn's.) For example, Călinescu defines "personalities" as characterized (for Eliade) by "purpose" and a "complicated and dangerous alchemy". Is this just another way of saying that truly having "personality", as opposed to mere individuality (e.g., "personal idiosyncrasies"), means having a sense of purpose and some interesting characteristics? I'm not sure. Also, it took me a while to figure out why the word "however" appears in the first sentence of the second paragraph. "However" usually implies that what follows somehow contrasts with what came before. After a little thought, I figured it out:

First paragraph: Eliade denies objectivity. He thinks each person is basically condemned to individuality, condemned to create his own relationship to reality.

However...

Second paragraph: Eliade isn't interested in just any kind of individuality, but only in the individuality of great "personalities".

Now that I think about it, this makes sense. But I'm a bit worried, because it took me a while to figure it out. Dahn, perhaps you could reword the second paragraph a bit?

Anyway, thanks for all the hard work, Dahn. I'm glad we finally have something like a complete outline of Eliade's life/career. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the the quick response and very helpful insight. Indeed, you got the meaning right - except that part on "contradictions". I do believe that what Călinescu means is that Eliade is not afraid of contradicting himself - something like "on page 1, I will write this, and you may find that, on page 3, I say the exact opposite - but that is okay, because my intended purpose is to experience and experiment with what I write, and not to give you an outline of the philosophy you may be accustomed to" (Zen, anyone?). The helpful thing is that he cites Eliade saying it; the problematic thing is that the direct quotes are not much longer than the ones I cited in the article, so I had to be careful not to substitute Călinescu's opinion for Eliade's - in turn, that was bound to lead to a loss of clarity. It's also that I was doing this in one go (which was probably not the best way to tackle it). I will however try my best to rephrase all that portion of text to make the points more obvious.
Indeed, the single source issue is bound to be a problem, especially considering that Călinescu was not one the friendliest critics of Eliade - in fact, the magazine he wrote for was at times ridiculing Eliade the writer, and some of those articles may actually be Călinescu's work (they're signed with a pseudonym). I tried to find additional commentary in Lovinescu, who is equally relevant as a critic and who, as far as I could tell, found Eliade a much more interesting writer than Călinescu did. I was yet unable to find his book, even though I had asked a friend to "store" it for me. I'm still on the lookout, so perhaps later...
I'm in the process of including more from other sources - including ones that discuss Eliade's post-1940 literary works (which, for some - probably political - reason, Călinescu does not). The problem I face is that they are intertwined with text that could be used in sourcing other sections, so I'm reviewing them slowly, in order to "milk them dry". Once I'll finish with at least the bulk of this task, I'll address all your concerns. Dahn (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I rephrased that part, and it is hopefully clearer now. I'm sure my additions will need more copyedits, so I am looking forward to any intervention or suggestion (I'll use the inuse tag only for more substantial additions). Dahn (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My recent addition: "Politics of Myth"

As promised, I added the basic argument from Ellwood's "Politics of Myth" about the connection between Eliade's experiences, his theories of myth, and his shady political involvements. I couldn't decide where to put it, so I made a whole new section for it. It's rather long, and I imagine it could use some editing to make it more concise. Ellwood is admittedly rather sympathetic to Eliade, so it would be great if we could find a different scholar who also addresses this connection. For right now, though, this will have to do. (The preexisting section on "Far right and nationalist influences" isn't really about the same thing that Ellwood discusses, as far as I can tell.) --Phatius McBluff (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the research and the hard work. I would, however, consider merging it into various other sections: it is actually feasible for part of it to go into the "Far right and nationalist influences", and the rest can be included in other parts. If one summarizes the connections between staements and the context every time Elwood is cited in a new section, we would not risk splitting the point. The thing is that the section currently repeats info present in other sections (part of that is actually my fault - for example, we were adding the info on Ionescu's preface to Sebastian's book and Eliade's reaction to it at roughly the same time...). If you don't mind, I would like to try my hand at such a move soon, and, in case you disagree with my changes, you could of course revert me or correct me immediately. Would that be okay by you? Dahn (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
That sounds fine. Go ahead and incorporate what I added into other sections. If you don't mind, maybe you could try doing it piecemeal (i.e., moving one subsection or less of the "Connections between..." section at a time) so that I can keep track of what's being moved where. Thanks! --Phatius McBluff (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I'll get around to it sometime in the next 24-48 hours, as I'm gonna have to log off now. I'll also leave a summary, here on the talk page, of what part I plan to move into which section. In any case, this is the type of situation where it is easier to show what you mean than to describe it. Dahn (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dahn -- I kept on re-editing the section, because I kept finding things I could add or parts I could clarify. (Remember, my writing is a paraphrase of Ellwood, who is himself paraphrasing Eliade. Thus, I wanted to make my writing as precise as possible, so that when you paraphrase my writing and incorporate it into other sections, it remains as accurate as possible.) However, I'm now quite happy with the section, and I'm going to keep my hands off it for a while to let you incorporate it into the rest of the article. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again. Here is how I'm going to go at incorporating the new section into the article (ordered by place in text; the steps themselves are not necessarily in this order):
1) Move the stand-alone introductory section to "Far right and nationalist influences" (a section about criticism may include answers to and reviews of criticism).
2) Move the bulk of the "Gnosticism and romanticism" into the "Philosophy" section, either as stand-alone section or as a distinct paragraph in the final section. Connect the rest with the former stand-alone section in "Far right and nationalist influences".
3) Move the basic bio detail in "Exile and nostalgia" to "Childhood and adolescence". Move some of the conclusion together with stuff from move 2) in the "Philosophy" section, clarifying the connection Ellwood makes with Eliade's childhood and with Eliade's take on his own bio. Move the part strictly about the Iron Guard to "Posterity" (in "Controversy"), to come alongside/right after claims that Eliade was actually a conservative. Ellwood's argument about "radical modernism" would go in the same section - before or after Oişteanu's arguments concerning the hippies. In the process, split the quote about the "Return from paradise" - keeping the direct reference to the book as critical commentary, to be used in "Portrayals of a generation".
4) Move the very last paragraph under "Far right and nationalist influences".
5) About Sebastian's book, Ionescu's preface, and Eliade's intervention: I'm inclined to condense and move your additions to a section of the bio where the incident is already mentioned. I could move that section down to the "Controversy" section, but this seems to me as a more natural order of events.
There are a lot of subtleties involved in making these edits, so I did not list all changes that would have to be made. While some are self-evident (for example, I would have to clarify again who the "three mythologists" Ellwood discusses are in case a gap appears in the text between this sentence and the one citing them), others will pop to mind while I edit.
I'll start in about half an hour or so, just in case you have objections that you want me address beforehand. Dahn (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't really visualize how the finished product of these edits would look. At this point, if I offered some concrete advice, it would just be me talking for the sake of talking. Go ahead and make the edits, and I'll see what I think after you're done. My main concern is that you try to include (even if in a combined/reworded form) all the sentences I have cited pg numbers for. (For instance, try to preserve the point about Eliade's own exile contributing to his notion that exile is a metaphor for all human life, thus influencing his theory of an earlier stage of culture (from which modern man is now "exiled") before man had to face the "terror of history".) We begin to rapidly lose detail and accuracy when we lose the quotes and citations within an argument. Thanks for doing this! --Phatius McBluff (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is how I managed it. I did shorten some direct quotes and made them part of the prose, and I did condense some of the points that were either already explicit or for which explained things already explained in the text (for example, going over what "terror of history" and "eternal return" imply is largely pointless now - once these were moved to the "Philosophy" section, they come right after large portions of text were these are some of the main topics). Having split some of Ellwood's arguments over several sections, I did try to emphasize how they relate to one another without becoming repetitive. I have also adapted some of my earlier proposals on what to merge where: in some cases, I found better places for some of the quotes. I did not, however, remove any of the ideas and concepts introduced by Ellwood; if I did it was by sheer accident (I do apologize in advance if any such blunder occurred in the process, and, if so required from me, I'll do my best to amend it promptly). Dahn (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good job, Dahn! + a small concern

I played around with the article a bit, but left it substantially as you did. On the whole, I'm satisfied with how it turned out. I'm a bit worried, though, by the need to split information between the "Far right and nationalist influences" subsection under "Criticisms" and the "Controversy: Antisemitism and the Iron Guard" section. There's some material that I think could go equally well in either of these parts (as you can see from the equivocation in my most recent edit history). It's not as big a problem as it might seem, because anyone who's interested in reading one of those parts with probably read the other. But the largely arbitrary placement of some material in one rather than the other annoys me. For instance, Ellwood tries to extract a political philosophy from Eliade's later work. Does this belong in "Far right ... influences"? (It's a case of looking for far right influences in Eliade's later work.) Or does it belong in "Controversy"? (Based on Eliade's later work, Ellwood concludes that Eliade's sympathy for Iron Guard principles had significantly dissolved.) --Phatius McBluff (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess my main problem is with this passage:

Despite Eliade's withdrawal from radical politics, Robert Ellwood indicates, he still sought an escape from the current "fallen" world. In one of his writings, Eliade says, "Against the terror of History there are only two possibilities of defense: action or contemplation."[1] According to Ellwood, the young Eliade took the former option, trying to reform the world through action, whereas the older Eliade resisted the terror of history intellectually.[2] Eliade still wanted to see a cultural renewal in Romania, but he now worked for it by academic rather than political means. He saw himself and other exiled Romanian intellectuals as members of a circle who worked to "maintain the culture of a free Romania and, above all, to publish texts that had become unpublishable in Romania itself".[3]

As far as I can tell, it doesn't really belong either in "Controversy" (since it isn't about Eliade's involvement with the Iron Guard, and is only tangentially related to Eliade's later lack of involvement with it [it could just as well be about Eliade's sheer disillusionment with politics]) or in "Far right and nationalist influences" (since it isn't specifically about how Eliade's theories were biased by far right politics). See my most recent edit, where I tried (unsuccessfully, in my view) to put that passage in a more logical location. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you yet again. There are, of course, several ways of tackling this issue. My rationale, which is by no means a final verdict, focused on "Eliade still wanted to see a cultural renewal in Romania". This, I gather, is Ellwood elaborating on the fact that Eliade was still motivated by one of the reasons that got him interested in the Iron Guard, but was no longer channeling it in the same way. It also contains a direct reference to his political involvement, meaning that it would look awkward to place it in the "Philosophy" section. Since it references a process, starting from what Ellwood and Ellwood alone sees as a specific motivation for supporting the Guard ("cultural renewal"), I still think my solution was better - at the moment, the text reads that Eliade "still wanted a cultural renewal", but the indication that he wanted it in the first place is several paragraphs below it.
There is another way. Since you have the text in front of you and know best what exactly it says, you could move the parts that are not essential to the argument (i.e.: the ones that simply describe his activities, such as his cultural activities in exile) to "Biography", or leave them where they presently are. You could then summarize the conclusion that Ellwood draws about Eliade's motivations and move it back to where it previously was. The latter could read something like: "Based on his cultural activities in exile, Ellwood believes that Eliade channeled the same motivation to an apolitical purpose etc." This would not harm the point he is making about Eliade's transition from political to apolitical. Provided this is feasible, it would probably be the best solution. Dahn (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks great to me. Dahn (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The second longest biography of Wikipeda

I know that Eliade was a productive influential person but this is the second longest biography of Wikipeda. May be even some more ancillary article would be justified. Andries (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I for one admit this is getting to be problem. Let me outline my main proposals: I shall start a new article to cover the controversy part, and add it as a main article before curtailing that section in this article; that should reduce part of the text to more manageable proportions, but I think there should be some detailed discussion concerning what to do with the other parts of the article. Note: I am of the opinion that the biographical section should remain as is, since starting separate articles on a person and his/her life seems absolutely senseless to me. I would also like to add more from various sources to those other sections, to get the absolutely complete picture (to the measure where this is possible), before doing the same there. Dahn (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... I too am starting to feel that this article is far too long. Dahn's proposal is reasonable. I'm tempted to suggest something similar for the section on Eliade's philosophy of religion, since (however essential and un-condensable it may currently be) its length is disproportionate to its relative importance. I would not suggest trying to remove material on Eliade's scholarly theories; that material is probably the main reason that someone would look up an article on Eliade. (That's not to say that we shouldn't eventually consider creating separate articles that offer expanded discussions of Eliade's various theories.) --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
That may very well be true. I was interested in Eliade because of his theory of religion. See user:Andries/Theories_of_religion#Eliade_and_the_sacred. Andries (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree with Phatius: the theory of religion is, afaict, an excellent and comprehensive summary, and there's nothing I would take out of it. Another issue here is that of Eliade's literary works: I would also like to see that section about the same length as it is now - or, to be closer to the mark, I consider that creating an intermediate article to cover his literature to be rather pointless, since the article on his major books are or (for most) are set to be articles on their own, and since there already is an article on his whole bibliography. Incidentally, I would also suggest that the future possible creation of articles on Eliade's theories also assume a "topical" rather than abstract form: the Eternal return article is a very good example of this system (one I favor over articles of the, say, "Eliade and Christianity" or "Eliade's view of Jainism" type).
I'm already working on a separate article around the part in "Controversy" - which would also cover some parts in Biography and Legacy. I'll reduce and condense the fragments in question once that is completed. Dahn (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I started on an article user:Andries/Mircea Eliade's cultural legacy. I could use some help. It is a copy of the contents here and I hope that eventually a shorter summary will appear here. Andries (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the summary is sufficiently informative for 70% of the readers and for 10% even the summary is too long. The current main article is I believe sufficiently informative for 95% (only 5% will read an ancillary article) and too long for 80%. Let try to ensure that the main article will be sufficiently informative for 90% and too long for 40%. Andries (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kafka

I think it would take a lot of intellectual effort to not see the influence of Kafka on his fiction. Is there any word on how he reconciled this with the anti-semiticism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.15.232 (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split this article, please!

Suggestions Clearly, this article is far too long for Wikipedia. That having been said, most all of it is fine, on-topic, and well-sourced, so it is not worth deleting it outright. May I suggest the following rough guideline for splitting this article:

Section 1 - Biography is essentially the meat of the article and should be kept in its entirety
Sections 2 and 3 - The scholar and Eliade's philosophy should basically be split into Philosophy of Mircea Eliade. These sections should be consolidated in this main article and provide a {{main}} link.
Sections 4 and 6 - Criticism of Eliade's scholarship and Controversy: antisemitism and links with the Iron Guard should be split into Criticism of Mircea Eliade. Again, these should be consolidated into one brief overview here with a {{main}} link.
Section 5 - Literary works should probably be more brief and much of its material ported over to Bibliography of Mircea Eliade, which already exists.
Section 7 - Cultural legacy should remain
All the bibliographical material should remain and relevant resources should be referenced in the philosophy of and criticism of articles.

Does this make sense to anyone else? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)