Images as a Hint to the Other World: The Use of Images as Mediators in Medieval and Early Modern Societies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposed subject is truly engaging and ambitious. However, the paper's scope is enormous and its concise account is more suitable for an encyclopedia entry. As the result, the text loosely adheres to various objectives but hardly achieves any of them. The article's proposed title showcases the contentious nature of its narration. Are the visuals indicative ("hint") or intermediary ("mediator")?  These two functions are different.

Almost every aspect discussed in the manuscript in brief might be the focus of a separate article. Each sub-area requires a thorough examination of its empirical data, state of the art, and the choice of related methodology. The author's use of secondary sources is generally competent, but their selection seems sporadic. For instance, the selection of books with titles containing "speculum" or "mirror" appears random.      

A narrowly specific, well-defined, and meticulously traced subject would be much more advantageous.

Author Response

First of all, thank you very much for the comments and suggestions.

Instead of adding new elements, since it was advised to narrow down the scope of analysis, what I've done is to remove a portion of the written content, particularly in the notes, but also in parts of the original text. The newly interpolated sentences are highlighted in yellow.

Regarding the indicative and intermediary facets, as it is said in the introduction: “In medieval and early modern aesthetics, the indicative and intermediary features of images often overlapped. An image could indeed be both indicative and intermediary simultaneously; it could depict a biblical scene, representing a narrative, while also serving as a medium through which believers could engage with the divine story and possibly receive spiritual insight or grace” (60-63).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The premise of the paper is an interesting one and the latter would be a valuable addition to scholarship. Having said that, the article needs major restructuring for its content to be accessible to the reader. 

First of all, it is too long and highly repetitive, while there are too many endnotes that further complicate the extraction of meaning.

The larger part of the Introduction could be eliminated, and the Method of reasoning should be shortened. Both these sections consist of very short paragraphs that continuously add names of scholars and glimpses to their writings, that are never actually synthesized in a continuous narrative. Very often, these very short fragments could form longer paragraphs, as they refer to a single scholar (for example, Bruno, lines 233-256).

The main discussion of the article that follows spans a very wide set of religious systems and dogmas, from Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Muslims to Hindus and Aboriginals (Yolngu, lines 325-331). However, there is no mention of Orthodox icons. While I appreciate the breadth of the research, generalisations are bound to occur, and oversimplifications cannot be avoided.

What is more, the inner structure of the article does not appear natural. It was difficult to understand why the discussion of the mirror is divided in several sections: how is the analysis in 4.1 different to the one that preceded it?

Overall, there does not seem to be an underlying argument the pushes the discussion forward, to a certain direction. There is a plethora of information but no synthesis. On the whole, the article feels as if a whole doctoral thesis was abridged and presented in a single article. 

The Conclusion is the only part that is built around a narrative and an argument, and I wish it had been used more visibly as a roadmap for the rest of the article. 

Author Response

First of all, thank you very much for the comments and suggestions.

Instead of adding new elements, since it was advised to narrow down the scope of analysis, what I've done is to remove a portion of the written content, particularly in the notes, but also in parts of the original text.

The added excerpts, highlighted in yellow, aim to enhance the clarity of the article's structure, which progresses from the general (symbolic thought as medieval epistemology) to the iconic image, serving as a mirror. Then, the concept of humans as a mirror-image of God (with Jesus as the prototype) is analyzed. In the final section, we explore speculum the final section, speculum books, specifically the Mirror of Human Salvation, as a remarkable instance of these concepts.

I have deleted a significant portion of the introduction, shortened the Method, and those paragraphs about Bruno as well. I have merged both sections, 3 and 4.1.

These adjustments have enhanced the flow and sophistication of the article, making it more polished and cohesive.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a fascinating and persuasive article. The connections it makes between aesthetics and theological/metaphysical theory in the Medieval and Early Modern periods are nuanced and pertinent.

The argument is strong. The examples are well=chosen and neatly analyzed.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While there are few infelicities of language, perhaps, this is clearly and efficiently written. As to improvements on language....I might cut back on the ongoing comments on the process of argumentation (the "this text/article is doing this or that" remarks) and replace, when necessary with more rhetorically elegant transitions (?)

Author Response

Thank you very much for the kind comments. I have taken your suggestion into account and reduced the ongoing comments on the process of argumentation, deleting or replacing them with more rhetorically elegant transitions where necessary. These adjustments have enhanced the flow and sophistication of the article, making it more polished and cohesive. I have included the modified new paragraphs highlighted in yellow

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for taking my suggestions into account. The article is now remarkably improved and ready for publication.