#THE CHALICE AND THE BLADE WORKS CITED MANUAL#
When directly quoting a classical or religious work in the text, the seventh edition Publication Manual says to use “canonically numbered parts common across editions (e.g., books, chapters, verses, lines, cantos)” (p. The translator, if known, should be listed in parentheses after the title, as shown in the Rumi and Alighieri references later in this post. If the date is an approximation, place “ca.” (short for “circa”) before the year (or years if a date range is provided rather than a single year see the Epic of Gilgamesh reference later in this post). For ancient works, place “B.C.E.” (short for “before the common era”) after the year. When the original publication date of a republished work is known, add it in parentheses at the end of the reference list entry after the phrase “Original work published” (see the Alighieri reference in this post). In other words, the title of the work should be placed in the author position, followed by the republication date in parentheses (see the New American Bible and the Srimad Bhagavad-Gita examples later in this post). Specifically, the original author and/or publication date of a classical or religious work might be unknown or disputed, in which case you should cite the work as if it has no author and use the date of republication for the version you’re citing, if available. There are some special considerations to bear in mind for retrievability purposes, however, such as missing reference information for these works. For example, an online version of the Qur’an would be cited using the webpage reference format, but a book version of Plato’s Republic-whether it be a print book or an ebook-would be cited using the book reference format. I persist in the view that that scholarship is riddled with absurdities and find it hard to believe that the overwhelming majority of historians will not share my judgment.A classical or religious work is cited as either a book or a webpage, depending on what version of the source you are using. The issue does not concern the interpretation of human nature - over which disagreement has persisted since the dawn of literacy. Eisler's assumptions about human nature than with my own. Loye should know, most contemporary Marxists would more likely agree with Ms. Loye's roster and unshaken in my judgment. Eisler's book stands on its merits and no appeal to the endorsements of learned authorities can either save or condemn it. Loye's spirited defense notwithstanding, Ms. Rather than resorting to distorting omission (for example, failure to even hint at the archeological evidence discussed at length in the book, backing its conclusions), quoting out of context and ridicule, an honest review from someone who believes (and this is a quotation from the review within context) that ''violent conflict'' is the ''midwife to some of the greatest leaps toward freedom,'' and who intimates that war is just ''human nature,'' would have openly addressed the author's and the reviewer's fundamental ideological differences. In contrast to the reviewer's attempt to trivialize this extraordinary work, assessments by the above group ranged from ''groundbreaking'' and ''catalytic and pioneering'' to ''the most important book since Darwin's 'Origin of Species.' '' They include the following authorities well known in their respective fields, in alphabetical order: Ralph Abraham, Jessie Bernard, Carol Christ, Marija Gimbutas, Wilma Scott Heide, Hazel Henderson, Mara Keller, Ervin Laszlo, Jean Baker Miller, Ashley Montagu, Nicolas Platon, Merlin Stone, Charles Tilly, Barbara Walker. Because its reconstruction of our past, present and future is based on neglected (and even suppressed) as well as long-established findings from a wide range of fields, and because this reconstruction differs so greatly from traditional (including the reviewer's Marxist) views, sections relevant to their expertise were screened for accuracy by two archeologists, two historians, an anthropologist, two systems theorists, three sociologists, three psychologists, three religious studies scholars, two art historians and an economist.
I am one of 19 social scientists and other scholars, both male and female, who reviewed this book prior to its recent publication. As one acquainted with Riane Eisler's book ''The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future'' from its inception, I am writing regarding the distortion and misrepresentation of this remarkable book as antimale ''science fiction'' by its reviewer, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese (Oct.