--- name: history-of-religions description: Use when targeting History of Religions or deciding whether a comparative-historical religious-studies manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, its comparative-method and primary-source bar, textual/philological and morphological expectations, house style and review norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. --- # History of Religions (history-of-religions) ## Journal positioning History of Religions, published by the University of Chicago Press, is the field-defining venue for the comparative and historical study of religious traditions worldwide. Its defining commitment is the **"history of religions" methodology** — cross-cultural, comparative, and morphological analysis of religious phenomena (myth, ritual, symbol, cosmology, the sacred) grounded in primary-source and philological control of specific traditions. A strong submission joins close, language-based study of particular materials to a comparative or historical argument that illuminates how a religious form works across cases or develops over time. It is distinct from `the-journal-of-religion`, which is broader and welcomes theology and philosophy of religion, and from `harvard-theological-review`, with its textual, biblical, and early-Christian focus: History of Religions foregrounds method — comparison and historical morphology — over confessional or constructive concerns. Theological advocacy, or comparison that floats free of sources and languages, is a poor fit. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** aid. It does not replace the journal's current submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live History of Religions author instructions. ## When to trigger - The author names History of Religions for a comparative or historical study of religious traditions and wants a fit/framing check. - A study of one tradition must be reframed to carry a comparative or historical-morphological argument. - The author is choosing between History of Religions and a broad religious-studies venue or a textual/biblical journal. - The author needs the journal's comparative-method bar and desk-reject heuristics. ## Scope & topic fit - Comparative study of religious phenomena — myth, ritual, symbol, cosmology, sacred space and time — across traditions. - Historical study of the development and transformation of religious forms within and across traditions. - Morphological and typological analysis that illuminates the structure of religious phenomena. - Close, source-based study of specific traditions (any region or period) that bears a comparative or historical argument. - Method and theory in the comparative history of religions, including the comparative enterprise itself. ## Method & evidence bar - The contribution is an **original comparative or historical argument** about a religious form, not a parallel-hunting catalogue. - Command of the primary sources is demonstrated, with control of the relevant original languages and philology where the materials require it. - Comparison is principled and historically responsible — terms of comparison are justified, and difference is respected as much as similarity. - Engagement with the relevant comparative, historical, and area-specific scholarship is current and substantive. - Claims are proportionate to the evidence; methodological self-awareness about the categories and the comparative method is explicit. ## Structure & house style - Scholarly article with a sustained comparative or historical argument; defer exact length expectations and article types to the live guide. - Chicago notes-and-bibliography style with full footnotes; re-check the current form on the live guide. - Original-language sources are quoted, transliterated, and translated per the journal's policy across the relevant traditions. - Double-blind review: anonymize the manuscript (remove self-identifying citations and acknowledgements) per current policy. - Prose makes the comparative or historical stake legible to scholars working on other traditions, not only area specialists. ## Official-submission checklist - Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the University of Chicago Press anchors, then cite the current History of Religions page you checked. - Search the live site for "History of Religions submission guidelines" and follow the current version. - Re-check article types, length expectations, and the abstract requirement. - Confirm Chicago notes-and-bibliography form and anonymization for double-blind review. - Re-check original-language quotation, transliteration, and translation policy across the traditions cited. - Re-check prior-presentation/preprint, competing-interest, and AI-use disclosure policies. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] The argument is genuinely comparative or historical, not a parallel-hunting catalogue. - [ ] Primary sources are commanded directly, with the original languages and philology the materials require. - [ ] The terms of comparison are justified and difference is respected, not flattened. - [ ] Engagement with comparative, historical, and area-specific scholarship is current and substantive. - [ ] The manuscript is anonymized and follows Chicago notes-and-bibliography style. - [ ] Original-language quotations, transliterations, and translations follow the journal's policy. ## Common desk-reject triggers - A catalogue of superficial parallels with no principled comparative or historical argument. - Comparison untethered from primary sources or the relevant original languages. - Theological or confessional advocacy in place of historical and comparative analysis. - Claims out of proportion to the evidence, or comparison that flattens difference between traditions. - Wrong venue: a single-tradition theological or textual study with no comparative stake. ## Re-routing decision - Theology, philosophy of religion, or religion-and-culture argument across the broad field → `the-journal-of-religion`. - Textual, biblical, early-Christian, or rigorous philological-historical religious scholarship → `harvard-theological-review`. - Religion as part of a broad historical argument legible across fields → `the-american-historical-review`. - Society/ritual/belief studied as social history with a problem-driven argument → `past-and-present`. - Comparison of religious texts with a literary-critical or world-literature center → `comparative-literature`. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] History of Religions [Traditions/period] [Argument] [Sources/method] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check] [Re-route suggestion] ```