Discussione:Mircea Eliade: differenze tra le versioni
Contenuto cancellato Contenuto aggiunto
Nessun oggetto della modifica |
Notifica di fonti modificate che necessitano di revisione) #IABot (v2.0.9.2 |
||
| (30 versioni intermedie di 6 utenti non mostrate) | |||
Riga 21:
# ecco, questo è un bell'esempio di punto di vista soggettivo: "infamia morale" non sia una critica, poi, fa proprio ridere,e andava levato perché è nient'altro che una ripetizione enfatica e ben poco enciclopedica. Una cosa che diventa fuorivante soprattutto se nella voce si omettono tutti i dettagli biografici più compromettenti, giusto per far passare l'odea che Eliade fosse un povero martire ingiustamente insultato da quei bulli degli intellettuali italiani.
# "quelle note richieste da altri", cioè solo sulle parti che ti facevano comodo (gli studi sulla religione e, soprattutto, le '''critiche''' di altri intellettuali): il risulato è una voce totalmente squilibrata e personale, che esclude sistematicamente qualunque riferimento al contesto storico in cui Eliade ha operato e alla sua base ideologica.
# la storia di Eliade '''non''' è controversa, o almeno non lo è più da qualche annetto. Dici bene che "occorre riportare tutte le posizioni", ma ti sei limitato alle posizioni che lo difendono e che criticano i detrattori, ignorando bellamente le fonti presenti sulle pagine in altre lingue (inglese, francese e romeno in particolare). Il mio contributo, in effetti, è ancora incompleto: occorre approfondire il rapporto con la Guardia e di ferro, poi con
::::Sandorkrasna inizio a pensare che sei in malafede e mi stai stufando non poco (riga 37) [http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mircea_Eliade&action=historysubmit&diff=34026521&oldid=34026214] noti qualcosa? qualche fonte è saltata non credi? ah no... non è saltata è stata da te bellamente cancellata! eppoi ripeto quello che ho scritto..., quindi non prendermi in giro tu. grazie. Io ho inserito le note che sono state richieste da altri (Zolla e Scagno). Su Eliade ho qui inserito, leggi sopra, la necessità proprio di approfondirne la figura controversa. Ma lavoro a molte voci ora ci stai lavorando tu e sono contento, ma devi inserire per bene tutta la vicenda: non fare "controinformazione"... non va più di moda lo sai no? Qui poi su WP ancora meno di moda. Questa è una enciclopedia che usa il metodo critico che non consente di cancellare le fonti, te lo ripeto, non farlo più altrimenti ti segnalo.. :-) Poi chi è Jevole? Di che cosa stai parlando? Che cosa vuoi adombrare che sto difendendo il 'fascista' Eliade.. che cosa ti stai sognando? Ma come ti permetti! --[[Utente:Xinstalker|Xinstalker]] ([[Discussioni utente:Xinstalker|msg]]) 16:30, 7 ago 2010 (CEST) P.S. La 'strada da seguire' non la stabilisci tu, che ti sia ben chiaro, questa una enciclopedia che si basa sul sul [[WP:Consenso]] quindi vedi di darti una calmata. :-) Poi... dici che ''copiaincollo'' dal libro di Scagno? Ma come non sostenevi che erano mia elucubrazione e invece ora sono 'riferimenti' copia-incolla. Partiamo male Sandorkrasna su questa voce e mi dispiace perché sei partito fornendo fonti autorevoli e molto utili... Che facciamo litighiamo e facciamo la gara della virilità o abbassiamo i toni e collaboriamo? Ultima richiesta, fammi sapere cosa ne pensi. --[[Utente:Xinstalker|Xinstalker]] ([[Discussioni utente:Xinstalker|msg]]) 17:00, 7 ago 2010 (CEST)
::::::Tu stai sbroccando, è non è bello. Te lo ripeto, vediamo se ci arrivi: io ho inserito nella biografia informazioni presenti sulle pagine Inglesi, francesi e romene (citando quasi sempre parola per parola e citando le medesime fonti), ma accuratamente omesse nella pagina italiana. Ho eliminato il tuo ridicolo commento mal riportato sull'"infamia morale", che piazzato in nota senza specificare a cosa si riferisse (ai rapporti di Eliade col fascismo, ma di quello la pagina non parlava proprio) era totalmente fuorviante, oltre che assolutamnte non enciclopedico. Ti è chiaro, o la foia ti sta obnubilando il cervello? Ah, Evola, per la cronaca, era un fascista amicone di Eliade: ha anche una paginetta su Wikipedia, caso mai volessi controllare. Sorvolo sulle tue cretinate a proposito della "controinformazione", perché non voglio infierire.--[[Utente:SandorKrasna|SandorKrasna]] ([[Discussioni utente:SandorKrasna|msg]]) 02:00, 15 ago 2010 (CEST)
::: Dunque un testo con revisione paritaria internazionale sono 'balle'... così leggo più giù... il tuo 'taglia incolla' mal fatto dalle altre Wikipedie e 'ideologicamente' di parte nonché il tagliare le fonti che ritenevi scomode sono invece 'cose' corrette. Ho ora capito che per Jevole intendevi Evola... (sono due nomi piuttosto diversi, magari hai solo copiato male). Tutto il resto sono mie 'cretinate' in quanto ho il cervello obnubilato.... Riassumendo: ti lascio volentieri la voce... aspetto che prima o poi ti 'infinitano' (mica per questa voce... ma scommetto che in breve tempo quello è il tuo destino) e poi se e quando avrò tempo torno a lavorarci su... Buon lavoro! :-D --[[Utente:Xinstalker|Xinstalker]] ([[Discussioni utente:Xinstalker|msg]]) 19:23, 15 ago 2010 (CEST)
::::Nessun "malfatto taglia incolla", ma solo un'estensione biografica e critica con '''fonti riconosciute''' (un concetto a te un po' oscuro, vedo). Ribadisco di '''non''' aver tagliato fonti, ma '''tuoi''' commenti personali abilmente piazzati in nota. Apprezzo comunque il fatto che tu non voglia insistere. Quando hai un po' di tempo potresti piuttosto risistemare quei tre deliranti paragrafi sul "Pensiero", giusto per renderli più leggibili.--[[Utente:SandorKrasna|SandorKrasna]] ([[Discussioni utente:SandorKrasna|msg]]) 14:41, 17 ott 2010 (CEST)
:::::Commenti personali miei? sono di Zolla. I deliranti tre paragrafi non li hai scritti tu? No? Beh io nemmeno, vedi di cercare da altre parti... :-D --[[Utente:Xinstalker|Xinstalker]] ([[Discussioni utente:Xinstalker|msg]]) 19:38, 9 feb 2011 (CET) Ah forse ti riferivi alla nota che hai cancellato quella che per sbaglio ho riportato come Di Nola invece era Lanternari che riportava L. Sebastian. E' vero ho confuso Di Nola con Lanternari (V. Lanternari ''Ripensando a Mircea Eliade''. Critica sociologica 79, 10/12 1986 pagg. 67-82) ma la fonte, corretta e segnalata ora c'è, che fai la rimetti tu? Grazie! --[[Utente:Xinstalker|Xinstalker]] ([[Discussioni utente:Xinstalker|msg]]) 22:06, 9 feb 2011 (CET)
== Querelle ''politica'' su Eliade==
Sto partendo ma lascio qui l'intervento di [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Rennie Bryan S. Rennie] datato 2005 e pubblicato sulla ''Encyclopedia of Religion'' 2005 pubblicata dalla Macmillan di New York che ricordo essere uno strumento sotto revisione paritaria internazionale a cui contribuiscono centinaia di studiosi di tutto il mondo. L'intervento di Rennie riguarda proprio la controversa figura politica di Eliade durante la Seconda Guerra mondiale e mi sembra toccare per bene i temi in questione a cui rinvio per l'organizzazione di questa voce:
{{q|POLITICAL PROBLEMS. The attempt to unravel Eliade’s political position is an exemplar of the task confronting the historian of religions. Unearthing as much data as possible does not complete our undertaking—beyond that, there is always the call to interpret the data and to reach some conclusion while remaining scrupulously conscious of what we ourselves introduce. Eliade’s political involvement in interwar Romania was largely unacknowledged in the United States until the late 1980s. However, the works of Ivan Strenski, Adriana Berger, and Leon Volovici raised specific questions: had Eliade been a supporter of the Legion of the Archangel Michael, a militant Romanian, Orthodox/nationalist organization also known as the Iron Guard? Since this organization was openly anti-Semitic, had Eliade been, and did he remain, anti-Semitic himself? The work in French of Daniel Dubuisson and Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine is particularly critical in this respect. Saul Bellow’s 2000 novel, Ravelstein, added to these concerns. Bellow was a close friend from Eliade’s Chicago years, and the book features a Romanian historian of religions apparently concealing an anti-Semitic past. The same year saw the publication in English of the journal of Eliade’s friend of the 1930s, Mihail Sebastian. Sebastian was a Jewish writer who attributed the deterioration of his friendship with Eliade to the latter’s politics. Some saw his testimony as conclusive proof that Eliade was, indeed, anti-Semitic. Public reaction is suggested by a letter to the New Yorker from Harvey Cox, professor at the Harvard Divinity School (“A Study in Fascism,” October 30, 2000), who concluded that Sebastian’s Journal put Eliade’s “virulently anti-Semitic views . . . on the record for all to see.” Even given newly available information, a clear and unambiguous judgment remains difficult to attain. There remains significant doubt that Eliade ever was “virulently anti- Semitic.” While Bellow’s novel may be inspired by reality, it remains fiction, although Eliade did undeniably champion the Legion of the Archangel Michael. Between January 1937 and February 1938, when he was thirty, Eliade wrote more than a dozen articles in the Legion’s support, and there is some evidence that he participated in electioneering for the Legion in December 1937. However, a distinction has to be made between an involvement with the politics of the right and anti-Semitism, and a brief period of political activity does not necessarily indicate a lifelong commitment. Through the early 1930s Eliade took a deliberately “apolitical” stance in the specific sense of withholding allegiance from the increasingly radical popular parties of both left and right. He saw these parties as rootless, foreign, brutal, and uncultured, and he championed tradition, culture, and the intellect in opposition. However, he was increasingly drawn into a nationalist position whose dangers are now all too well known. After his return from India in 1931, Eliade participated in an intellectual group called Criterion, which brought informed debate of significant issues to the Bucharest public. There were suspicions that this group was cryptocommunist, and it had at least two Jewish members, but it also had members whose sympathies were to the right, and in 1932 some of these founded a review called Axa (The Axis), which gave open support to the Legion. Eliade never contributed to that journal. In fact, in 1933, along with some thirty other intellectuals and artists, he signed a protest against the return to barbarism portended by anti-Semitic persecutions in Hitler’s Germany. The same year his article “Racism in the Cinema” protested against “Aryan” racist apologetics, and he explicitly rejected the confusion of nationalism and anti-Semitism in an article objecting to the expulsion from Romania of the Jewish scholars Moses Gaster and Laza˘r S¸a˘ineanu in 1885 and 1901 respectively. In 1934 he wrote (under the pseudonym “Ion Pla˘e¸su”) an article, “Against Left and Right,” arguing against the totalitarianism of both political extremes. However, he remained reluctant to become directly involved with political allegiances, even as he sought to clarify their foundations. In 1934 Sebastian’s autobiographical novel on the contemporary position of Romanian Jewish intellectuals appeared. De doua˘ mii de ani (For Two Thousand Years) bore a preface by the actively right-wing Bucharest philosopher, Nae Ionescu. Ionescu had been the professor and mentor of both Eliade and Sebastian, and editor of the widely circulated review, Cuvântul, to which both men had regularly contributed before its prohibition in 1934. His preface was openly anti-Semitic, in theological rather than racial terms, but Sebastian retained it out of loyalty. Eliade responded in print, attempting to mediate between his friend and their professor and to reject the latter’s anti-Semitism, again on theological grounds. However, it is obvious that Eliade opposed only the most obvious manifestations of anti-Semitism and failed to appreciate the dangers of other anti-Semitic rhetoric. At the beginning of 1935 Eliade’s journalism openly continued to denounce both Nazism and Communism as forms of modern idolatry that dissolve moral distinctions in favor of biological or social criteria. He maintained his “apolitical” stance, arguing that the greatest weapon of any writer is independence vis-à-vis every political group. Yet it is in this period that the beginnings of his slide into political involvement can be seen. Eliade’s “apolitical” stance was criticized from both the left and the right and attracted scant appreciation. His appeal for cultural sophistication rather than the popularist barbarism of political mass movements was largely ignored. The somewhat inept and corrupt incumbent “liberal” government failed to increase financial support for cultural activity but rather increased taxation of authors, provoking censure from Eliade. Even though he was not engaged in Ionescu’s political activities, Eliade’s friendship with the philosopher and his former affiliation with Cuvântul sufficed to establish an initial connection to the right. One of Eliade’s perennial themes of the period was the unhappy financial situation of writers in Romania. When the state introduced a duty on writers’ royalties in 1935, Eliade was convinced that the money would not be used for cultural advancement and reacted badly. He accused not only the state but also the bourgeois-capitalist public of indifference. Shortly after, he was threatened with the seizure of his furniture in lieu of the duty on his royalties. The refusal of the incumbent government to found an institute of Middle Eastern and Oriental Studies made Eliade sharply aware of the contrast between, for example, fascist Italy, which had such an institute, and Romania, which did not. Eliade’s scorn for the political left at that time was based mainly upon his belief that the principal superstition of the modern period concerns single, universal explanations that effectively remove human freedom. Among these he counted Hegelian historicism, Freudianism, and Marxism. Unable to sympathize with either the left or the incumbent government, Eliade in earlier articles indicated no leanings to the right either. However, in December 1935 he noted that one “youth leader” described his mission as “the reconciliation of Romania with God.” Here Eliade saw a religious appeal that called upon neither class struggle, nor political interests, nor economic instincts, nor biological distinctions. The leader was Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, the founder of the Legion of the Archangel Michael, a group formed in a split from the League for National Christian Defense. This was the earliest expression of Eliade’s admiration for Codreanu, and it did not, at that time, extend to the movement itself. Eliade seems to have seen Codreanu’s “religious” appeal as a means of popularizing the type of cultural creation that he had previously attributed to the intellectual and writer by appealing to deep traditional roots. In another article of the same year, Eliade made it clear that he considered creators of culture to be a country’s most potent force—the most effective nationalists, thanks to whom a nation “conquers eternity. . . . No matter what happens in Italy now” he wrote in October 1935, “no historical power can remove Italy from her place in eternity. No revolution, no massacre, no catastrophe can wipe out Dante, Michelangelo, Leonardo” (“România în eternitate,” Vremea, October 13, 1935). Eliade’s disposition to see the Legion as a religious cultural movement was increased by his visit in June 1936 to England as Romanian delegate to the Oxford Group, a Christian revivalist movement. It was this “religious” and “traditional” aspect of the Legion that attracted his open support. (See Nagy-Talavera’s work, cited in the bibliography, for a detailed history of the Legion.) There is disagreement as to whether Eliade actually enrolled in the Legionary movement. No Legionary records remain and possibly none were ever kept. Government archives of the period indicate that the police suspected him of joining sometime in 1935 and belonging to a Legionary cell or “nest” led by Radu Demetrescu Gyr. However, most commentators think it very unlikely that he joined before 1937, and some insist that he belonged to a different nest associated with the journal Axa. Thus, police suspicions remain unproven, and no certain evidence of membership has ever been brought forward. What is certain is that he contributed his written support to the Legion and thereby supported an openly anti-Semitic movement whose leader proclaimed a Jewish conspiracy, and whose second-in-command, Ion Mo¸ta, had translated the anti-Semitic propaganda, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, into Romanian. Eliade’s writings themselves express no anti-Semitism of this order. Only three of these “Legionary” articles mention Jews, and it is clear that his was, first and foremost, a rhetoric proceeding from a sentiment of general xenophobia commonly associated with nationalism. He continued to denounce elsewhere the intolerant, vulgar anti-Semitism he perceived around him. In June 1936 he had written an article in homage to Moses Gaster, who had made a large donation of old books and manuscripts to the Romanian Academy. Eliade opposed anti-Semitism that might reduce Romania’s culture, as had Gaster’s expulsion, but he seemed ready to accept anti-Semitism that would deny Jews equal status with ethnic Romanians. That he was also prepared to deny such status to ethnic Bulgarians and Hungarians hardly excuses this position, but it does put it into perspective: relations between ethnic and non-ethnic Romanians had been problematic since the founding of the nation in 1881. The Legion was officially proscribed early in 1938, and Eliade’s last supportive article appeared in February of that year. Codreanu was arrested in April and clandestinely executed in November. Eliade spent almost four months in a camp for Legionary sympathizers, from July to November, during which time he never acknowledged membership but refused to sign a declaration of separation from the Legion. After his release he ceased to express any sympathies for the Iron Guard but concentrated on his cultural productivity. He was appointed to the press services section of the Romanian Cultural Legation to London in April 1940. This appointment came from the royalist dictatorship that had ordered the execution of Codreanu and the massacre of some 250 Legionaries in 1939. Was Eliade’s appointment a sign of his detachment from the remaining Legionaries or, on the contrary, was it a sign of the government’s deliberate attempt at a rapprochement with them? That they still had considerable political influence became obvious in September 1940 when a “National Legionary State” was declared in Romania. In the legation in London, Eliade apparently boasted of his support for, and suffering on behalf of, the Legion, but the National Legionary State lasted only four months and Eliade did not benefit from it. In February 1941, when England broke diplomatic relations with Romania, he was posted to neutral Portugal. There he remained until the end of the war, after which he stayed in Paris until his employment by the University of Chicago in 1957. During his tenure as a functionary of the Office of Press and Propaganda of a country allied to Nazi Germany and a state enforcing openly anti- Semitic policies, Eliade produced neither anti-Semitic nor pro-Nazi rhetoric. Several commentators have also mentioned the fact that many colleagues and friends of Eliade’s American years were Jewish and not one of them ever detected any sign of anti-Semitism in his deportment. Despite recent determined attempts to disclose anti-Semitism in Eliade’s academic work, nothing indubitable has been established.}}
Ricordo anche che le Wikipedie citate da Sandorkrasna non sono fonti per Wikipedia e che nonostante ciò che sostiene Sandorkrasna, che forse non le ha lette, trattano la figura in modo problematico.--[[Utente:Xinstalker|Xinstalker]] ([[Discussioni utente:Xinstalker|msg]]) 17:16, 7 ago 2010 (CEST)
:Balle. Le fonti da me citate sono articoli pubblicati da riviste universitarie (alcuni disponibili online) e saggi critici, tutti accuratamente indicati in nota. Sono presi, come ho già spiegato, dalle pagine di Wikipedia in Inglese, francese e romeno: io mi sono limitato a riportarle e tradurle per integrare la biografia. Se l'utente Xinstalker non accetta la cosa, problemi suoi.--[[Utente:SandorKrasna|SandorKrasna]] ([[Discussioni utente:SandorKrasna|msg]]) 02:04, 15 ago 2010 (CEST)
:: Ti ho risposto più sopra... :)--[[Utente:Xinstalker|Xinstalker]] ([[Discussioni utente:Xinstalker|msg]]) 19:23, 15 ago 2010 (CEST)
Un po' di ulteriore bibliografia sul tema:
Bellow, Saul. Ravelstein. New York, 2000. Despite being a fictional
novel, some have seen the fact that this work was written
by a close friend who spoke at Eliade’s funeral as a guarantee
of its historical accuracy. Closely based on Bellow’s friend,
Allan Bloom, the eponymous protagonist of the novel constantly
warns the Jewish author that one Radu Grielecu, a
Romanian professor at the University of Chicago, was once
a member of the Iron Guard.
Berger, A. “Fascism and Religion in Romania.” The Annals of
Scholarship 6 no. 4 (1989): 455–465.
Berger, A. “Anti-Judaism and Anti-Historicism in Eliade’s Writings.”
In Tainted Greatness: Antisemitism and Cultural Heroes,
edited by Nancy A. Harrowitz, pp. 51–74. Philadelphia,
1994. Berger’s earlier articles are appreciative of Eliade’s theoretical
position. However, in her two later articles Berger
details her increasing conviction that Eliade was tainted with
an anti-Semitism that pervaded his history of religions.
Cave, John David. Mircea Eliade’s Vision for a New Humanism.
New York, 1992. In a generally appreciative consideration
of Eliade, Cave focuses on his new humanism as the key to
understanding the scholar’s thought.
Culianu, Ioan P., ed. Geschichte der religiösen Ideen. Vol. 4: Vom
Zeitalter der Entdeckungen bis zur Gegenwart. Freiburg im
Breisgau, Germany, 1991. Planned as a four-volume work,
Eliade’s History of Religious Ideas was not finished before his
death. This entirely German anthology seeks to complete the
project.
Devi, Maitreyi. It Does Not Die: A Romance. Calcutta, 1976. Reprinted
Chicago, 1994. The response in novel form to
Eliade’s novel Maitreyi (Bengal Nights) by the eponymous
heroine.
Dubuisson, Daniel. Mythologies du XXe Siècle (Dumézil, Lévi-
Strauss, Eliade). Lille, France, 1993. A consideration of the
three thinkers that concludes that Eliade’s anti-Semitism pervades
the whole of his ontological understanding of the history
of religions.
Duerr, Hans Peter. Die Mitte der Welt: Aufsätze zu Mircea Eliade.
Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 1984. A collection of articles
about Eliade by authors including Paul Ricoeur, Kurt Rudolf,
Ninian Smart, Ugo Bianchi, Douglas Allen, Zwi Werblowski,
T. J. J. Altizer, Emile Cioran, Ioan Culianu, Mac
Linscott Ricketts, Joseph Kitagawa, Adrian Marino, Eugen
Simion, and Matei Calinescu.
Eliade, Mircea. Bengal Nights. Chicago, 1994. The English translation
of Eliade’s 1933 Maitreyi. This is the fictionalized account
of Eliade’s amorous relationship with the daughter of
his Indian host, Surendranath Dasgupta.
Girardot, Norman. “Whispers and Smiles: Nostalgic Reflections
on Mircea Eliade’s Significance for the Study of Religion.”
In Changing Religious Worlds: The Meaning and End of Mircea
Eliade, edited by Bryan Rennie, pp. 143–163. Albany,
N.Y., 2001. Based on the author’s reflections on his acquaintance
with Eliade, this touches on the questions of personal
belief and integrity.
Handoca, Mircea. Mircea Eliade: Biobibliografie. 3 vols. Bucharest,
1997, 1998, 1999. The most complete bibliography of
Eliade’s prodigious output yet compiled.
Idinopulos, Thomas A., and Edward Yonan. Religion and Reductionism:
Essays on Eliade, Segal, and the Challenge of the Social
Sciences for the Study of Religion. Leiden, Netherlands, 1994.
Critical considerations by various authors of the question of
reductionism and the interrelations of Eliade, Robert Segal,
and the social scientific approach to the study of religion.
Laignel-Lavastine, Alexandra. Cioran, Eliade, Ionesco: L’Oubli di
Fascisme. Paris, 2002. One of the most detailed attempts to
assert Eliade’s long-standing commitment to the Iron Guard.
Despite its apparent thoroughness, this work shows signs of
prejudgment and selective use of sources and has been called
“excessively polemical” even by Eliade’s critics.
McCutcheon, Russell T. “The Myth of the Apolitical Scholar.”
Queen’s Quarterly 100 (1993): 642–646. A consideration of
Eliade’s case and his claims to “apolitical” status. What are
the implications of an acceptance of Eliade’s “apolitical”
claims?
McCutcheon, Russell T. Manufacturing Religion: The Discourse on
Sui Generis Religion and the Politics of Nostalgia. New York,
1997. An example of the post-Eliadean critique, particularly
concerning the sui generis nature of religion.
Nagy-Talavera, Nicholas. The Green Shirts and the Others: A History
of Fascism in Hungary and Romania. Ia¸si, Oxford, and
Portland, Ore., 2001. A general history of Hungarian and
Romanian militant nationalism, especially of the “Green
Shirts,” that is, Codreanu’s Iron Guard.
Olsen, Carl. The Theology and Philosophy of Eliade. New York,
1992. An attempt to evaluate Eliade’s analysis of religion as
revealing his own theology and philosophy. Olsen concentrates
on the symbolism of the search for the center and
Eliade’s search for his own center.
Paden, William. “Before the Sacred became Theological: Rereading
the Durkheimian Legacy.” In Religion and Reductionism:
Essays on Eliade, Segal, and the Challenge of the Social Sciences
for the Study of Religion, edited by Thomas A. Idinopulos and
Edward Yonan, pp. 198–209. Leiden, Netherlands, 1994.
Paden argues that Eliade’s concept of the sacred owes more
to the Durkheimian understanding of the sacred as a human
attribution than to Rudolf Otto’s numinous sacred.
Paus, Ansgar. “The Secret Nostalgia of Mircea Eliade for Paradise:
Observations on Method in the Study of Religion.” Religion
19 (1989): 137–150. In a perception of Eliade as a “secularized
mystic,” Paus considers his Eastern Orthodox
influences.
Rennie, Bryan. Reconstructing Eliade: Making Sense of Religion. Albany,
N.Y., 1996. An attempt to clarify the categories of
Eliade’s thought and account for their prevalent misunderstanding.
This addresses the questions of anti-Semitism, latent
theology, and attitudes to history.
Rennie, Bryan. Changing Religious Worlds: The Meaning and End
of Mircea Eliade. Albany, N.Y., 2001. An anthology of Anglophone
scholars both critical and appreciative of Eliade, including
a previously unpublished short story by Eliade and
extracts from his Indian journals.
Rennie, Bryan. Review of Journal, 1935–1944: The Fascist Years,
by Mihail Sebastian. Religion 32, no. 2 (2002): 172–175.
Rennie, Bryan. “Religion after Religion, History after History:
Postmodern Historiography and the Study of Religions.”
Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 15, no. 3 (2003):
68–99. A consideration of contemporary understandings of
the problems of historiography, including a response to Steven
Wasserstrom’s critique of Eliade.
Rennie, Bryan. The International Eliade. Albany, N.Y., 2005. An
anthology of essays from non-Anglophone scholars, including
considerations of many of the open questions of Eliade
scholarship and an Eliade play from 1944.
Ricketts, Mac Linscott. Mircea Eliade: The Romanian Roots,
1907–1945. Vols. 1 and 2. New York, 1988. This meticulously
researched biography of Eliade’s early life reveals most
of the historical details later debated.
Ricketts, Mac Linscott. Former Friends and Forgotten Facts. Norcross,
Ga., 2003. A compilation of papers revealing in detail
the inaccuracies of some criticisms of Eliade.
Ries, Julien, and Natale Spineto, eds. Esploratori del pensiero
umano. Georges Dumézil e Mircea Eliade. Milan, 2000,
pp. 201–248. Also published in French: Deux explorateurs de
la pensée humaine: Georges Dumézil et Mircea Eliade. Turnhout,
Belgium, 2003. A collection of articles on Dumézil
and/or Eliade. Douglas Allen and Mac Linscott Ricketts contribute
in English, while others write in Italian or French.
Noteworthy are contributions by Natale Spineto, Roberto
Scagno, Julien Ries, Natale Terrin, and Mircea Handoca.
Sebastian, Mihail. Journal: 1935–1944. Chicago, 2000. An important
insight into the dynamics of anti-Semitism in 1930s
Romania, Sebastian’s Journal gives an alternative insight into
Eliade’s development.
Simion, Eugen. Mircea Eliade: A Spirit of Amplitude. New York,
2001. A detailed analysis of Eliade’s literary work by the president
of the Romanian Academy, who is also a professor of
Romanian literature at the Sorbonne, Paris.
Smith, J. Z. Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown. Chicago,
1982.
Smith, J. Z. To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Chicago,
1987.
Smith, J. Z. Map Is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions.
Chicago, 1993.
Smith, J. Z. Relating Religion: Essays in the Study of Religion. Chicago,
2004. Although almost all general works on the history
of religions and the study of religion mention Eliade, those
of J. Z. Smith are particularly thoughtful and critical, although
they are not specialist studies of the complexity of the
Eliadean oeuvre.
Spineto, Natale, ed. Mircea Eliade, Raffaele Pettazzoni, L’Histoire
des religions a-t-elle un sens? Correspondance 1926–1959.
Paris, 1994. This volume is an important insight into
Eliade’s thought by way of his lengthy correspondence with
the Italian historian of religions.
Strenski, I. “Mircea Eliade: Some Theoretical Problems.” In The
Theory of Myth: Six Studies, edited by Adrian Cunningham,
pp. 40–78. London, 1973.
Strenski, I. “Love and Anarchy in Romania.” Religion 12 no. 4
(1982): 391–404.
Timu¸s, Mihaela, and Eugen Ciurtin. “The Unpublished Correspondence
between Mircea Eliade and Stig Wikander
(1948–1977).” Four Parts: Archævs: Études D’Histoire des Religions
4, no. 3 (2000): 157–185; 4, no. 4 (2000): 179–208;
5, nos. 3–4 (2001): 75–119; 6, nos. 3–4 (2002): 325–394.
Although published in a Romanian journal of limited circulation,
this is a valuable complement to the study of Eliade’s
life and thought.
Turcanu, Florin. Mircea Eliade: Le Prisonnier de l’Histoire. Paris,
2003. A detailed and well-researched biography that covers
Eliade’s entire life and avoids most of the polemical prejudgments
of the Laignel-Lavastine volume.
Volovici, Leon. Nationalist Ideology and Antisemitism: The Case of
Romanian Intellectuals in the 30s. New York, 1991. Although
Volovici is not a specialist on Eliade, this clearly indicates the
sources of the suspicions directed against him.
Wasserstrom, Steven. Religion after Religion: Gershom Scholem,
Mircea Eliade, and Henri Corbin at Eranos. Princeton, N.J.,
1999. A very well-written and compelling account of the implications
of those historians of religions who attended C. G.
Jung’s Eranos conferences. This work is perhaps one of those
showing evidence of somewhat forced argument concerning
Eliade’s anti-Semitism.
Webster, A. F. C. “Orthodox Mystical Tradition and the Comparative
Study of Religion: An Experimental Synthesis.”
Journal of Ecumenical Studies 23 (1986): 621–649. Webster
raised the question of the role of Eastern Orthodoxy in
Eliade’s understanding of religion. It is to be hoped that this
topic will attract further study.--[[Utente:Xinstalker|Xinstalker]] ([[Discussioni utente:Xinstalker|msg]]) 17:25, 7 ago 2010 (CEST)
== Mircea Eliade==
Riga 31 ⟶ 242:
== L'anonimo che ha chiesto le fonti sullo screditamento di eliade in Italia==
Ha ragione a chiederle. Non ho messo io quella frase e ora ho inserito Zolla poi inserirò un lavoro più accuratoe pregnante proprio su questo pubblicato a cura di Julien Ries e Natale Spineto, che citano in particolar modo i lavori di [[Alfonso Maria Di Nola]] e [[Furio Jesi]]... Raccomanderei comunque su questi delicati temi di inserire sempre le fonti altrimenti c'è chi giustamente le chiede eppoi noi dobbiamo rincorrerle e recuperarle. grazie ;-) --[[Utente:Xinstalker|Xinstalker]] ([[Discussioni utente:Xinstalker|msg]]) 11:10, 25 apr 2009 (CEST)
Più che sullo screditamento, sulla contestazione del metodo (troppo filosofico) usato da Eliade, si potrebbe citare qualche passaggio dei testi di Enzo Bianchi, storico delle religioni italiano.--[[Utente:Apo Quizquiz|Apo Quizquiz]] ([[Discussioni utente:Apo Quizquiz|msg]]) 21:36, 29 giu 2019 (CEST)
== Bibliografia: testo di Claudio Mutti ==
Elimino il testo di Claudio Mutti dalla bibliografia per due ragioni:
* è introvabile e lo stesso anno di pubblicazione è sconosciuto;
* un libro scritto da un autore di estrema destra e pubblicato dalla sua casa editrice (che ha in catalogo anche vari testi negazionisti) '''non può''' essere una fonte affidabile riguardo alla questione della vicinanza ideologica di Eliade al fascismo.
--[[Utente:SandorKrasna|SandorKrasna]] ([[Discussioni utente:SandorKrasna|msg]]) 14:55, 17 ott 2010 (CEST)
: Su questo almeno siamo d'accordo...--[[Utente:Xinstalker|Xinstalker]] ([[Discussioni utente:Xinstalker|msg]]) 19:38, 9 feb 2011 (CET)
== Controllare e chiarire ==
Ciao Clairec78 mi rendo conto della tua difficoltà a esprimerti in lingua italiana ma volevo farti notare che alcuni punti delle tue modifiche a questa voce risultano poco comprensibili e forse errate (come quella su Marx dove accenni a una critica di Paul Ricoeur su Marx che invece è un apprezzamento. Vedi [[Ermeneutica]] alla sezione Paul Ricoeur.) Quando qui scrivi :«la funzione centrale dell'ermeneutica è quello di ''recuperare e ripristinare i sensi'' [forse intendi rivelare i significati nascosti?]. Il filosofo francese ha scelto il ''modello della fenomenologia della religione'' [Cosa intendi quando attribuisci a Ricoeur il modello della fenomenologia della religione?), sottolineando che questo è caratterizzato da una ''preoccupazione'' [??] sull'argomento.», io non ci capisco niente. Nella sezione "Discorso sul metodo" non leggo nessuna trattazione del metodo ma una serie di definizioni di vari autori sul concetto di religione di Mircea Eliade ma che senso hanno queste definizioni se non vengono almeno accompagnate da una spiegazione sia pure accennata? --[[Utente:Gierre|Gierre]] ([[Discussioni utente:Gierre|msg]]) 10:47, 12 mag 2016 (CEST)
Ciao [[Utente:Gierre|Gierre]]. Mille scuse per i miei errori della lingua italiana.
Al Ricoeur se tratta di una critica, non di un apprezzamento di Marx. Eliade e Ricoeur criticano Marx che fa affermazioni prive di fondamento sulla religione in generale.
La citazione sulla funzione centrale dell'ermeneutica è una traduzione del testo francese secondo la parola che Ricoeur usa, che è ‘il senso’. Infatti possiamo scrivere che si riferisce al significato nascosto (nel singolare). È possibile modificare con significato nascosto.
Anche in questo caso è una citazione tradotta del testo francese dove Ricoeur scrive su un ‘argomento’ del soggetto di fenomenologia della religione, che è il sacro. È possibile modificare con soggetto.
Nel passaggio sul metodo è importante per il lettore di sapere che Eliade ha utilizzato numerosi metodi, non uno singolo. I suoi critici hanno presentato attraverso di uno o d'altro di questi metodi come primordiale.
Che cosa devo fare in queste circostanze in tutti questi casi? Grazie.--[[Utente:Clairec78|Clairec78]] ([[Discussioni utente:Clairec78|msg]]) 13:14, 12 mag 2016 (CEST)
:::Viste le tue difficoltà ho io stesso corretto i due paragrafi da controllare. Questo non accade spesso su Wikipedia dove gli utenti frequentemente si limitano a porre avvisi su parti da modificare. Noterai che [https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mircea_Eliade&diff=prev&oldid=80800834 la prima parte] del paragrafo, ora intitolato "L'ermeneutica", è stata spostata alla voce [[Fenomenologia della religione]] più adeguata a contenerla. Mi chiedi di consigliarti. Sinceramente credo che la tua conoscenza della lingua italiana, sebbene quasi sufficiente, sia ancora inadeguata a trattare argomenti filosofici che spesso richiedono un linguaggio accurato e talora specialistico. Sei comunque libera di continuare a collaborare nella Wikipedia in lingua italiana dove certo troverai chi potrà eventualmente aiutarti. --[[Utente:Gierre|Gierre]] ([[Discussioni utente:Gierre|msg]]) 08:38, 13 mag 2016 (CEST)
Ciao. Grazie mille [[Utente:Gierre|Gierre]] ([[Discussioni utente:Gierre|msg]]). Come sempre mi hai aiutato con gentilezza e professionalità. Tutto è perfetto adesso. Clara ti saluta.--[[Utente:Clairec78|Clairec78]] ([[Discussioni utente:Clairec78|msg]]) 11:41, 15 mag 2016 (CEST)
== Collegamenti esterni modificati ==
Gentili utenti,
ho appena modificato 1 collegamento/i esterno/i sulla pagina [[Mircea Eliade]]. Per cortesia controllate la [https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=95691152 mia modifica]. Se avete qualche domanda o se fosse necessario far sì che il bot ignori i link o l'intera pagina, date un'occhiata a [[:m:InternetArchiveBot/FAQ|queste FAQ]]. Ho effettuato le seguenti modifiche:
*Aggiunta del link all'archivio https://web.archive.org/web/20160313150818/http://paneacquaonline.it/notizia.php?id=14786 per http://paneacquaonline.it/notizia.php?id=14786
Fate riferimento alle FAQ per informazioni su come correggere gli errori del bot
Saluti.—[[:en:User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[:en:User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Segnala un errore]])</span> 07:57, 26 mar 2018 (CEST)
== Collegamenti esterni interrotti ==
Una procedura automatica ha [https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=130711017 modificato] uno o più collegamenti esterni ritenuti [[Aiuto:Collegamenti interrotti|interrotti]]:
*Aggiunta del link all'archivio https://web.archive.org/web/20150912131216/http://www.observatorcultural.ro/informatiiarticol.phtml?xid=8679&print=true per http://www.observatorcultural.ro/informatiiarticol.phtml?xid=8679&print=true
In caso di problemi vedere le [[:m:InternetArchiveBot/FAQ/it|FAQ]].—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[:en:User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Segnala un errore]])</span> 14:54, 28 nov 2022 (CET)
| |||