Fragments of the Liturgical-Musical Codex from the Archdiocesan Archive of Gniezno (Poland): Source Analysis and Provenance Hypotheses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for all your comments. I read the review of the article with interest. I am convinced that the comments provided will allow me to present similar issues in a much broader context in the future. Thank you for pointing out the advantages of the article and the overall positive opinion. I am aware that it can always be better and more exhausting. The most important thing for me in this case was to introduce the Gniezno source into scientific circulation and interest it to a wider group of medievalists.

 

Comments 1: Very short summary of the history of the introduction of the Feast of Corpus Christi is given in lines 364-370.  The function of the Offertory and the disappearance of its verses (lines 208-215).

Response 1: The source material presented in the article has not been discussed in the scientific literature so far. This is the first scientific study on this topic. I am aware that they could have been presented in a broader context. My research goal, however, was not to place it in the broader framework of the history of liturgy and its importance for the development of European religion, culture and art. In appropriate places, e.g. on Corpus Christi or on verses, I referred to selected literature just to highlight this problem. A reader interested in this issue in more detail will easily find literature on the history of the liturgy to deepen his knowledge on this subject.

Comments 2:  There is no discussion about why it is important to determine the origins of these particular leaves.

Response 2: Determining the origin of the leaves may be important for determining the subtype of local liturgical and musical tradition they represent. This is extremely difficult, as no sources were found in the Gniezno Archives with which the examined leaves could be compared. I hope that the presentation of these leaves in the journal „Arts” will be of interest to other researchers and contribute to discussion on this topic.

Comments 3:  I am doubtful about whether it fits the journal’s scope.

Response 3: In my opinion, the article falls within the scope of the "Arts" magazine, as evidenced by the texts on similar issues published there. I follow articles on the musical Middle Ages in a scientific journal "Arts” and, in my opinion, the presented article fits into its area.

Thank you very much also for all your formal comments. They have been included in the revised version of the article.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I enjoyed reading this article. Please see the attached Reviewer's Report for my comments. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some places where the English can be improved. I have listed these in the Reviewer's Report. Some of these are medieval and/or musical terminology. The English otherwise is good. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for all your comments. I read the review of the article with interest. I am convinced that the comments provided will allow me to present similar issues in a much broader context in the future. Thank you for pointing out the advantages of the article and the positive opinion. I have improved the text taking into account all comments.

Comments 1: Something that needs a lot of careful attention is the referencing system of the article.
I found this confusing, as there are in-text references which should be accompanied
by a reference list in alphabetical order at the end of the article; however, there is no
specific reference list or bibliography.

Response 1: The bibliography and footnotes recording system was made in accordance with the journal's standards, first there is a list of the bibliography I used, and then the footnotes.

Comments 2: In addition to the in-text references, there seems to be a system of endnotes in use, but
there are two separately numbered sets of endnotes that contain different content.
(Note also that note 2 of the second set of endnotes is written as 22.)

Response 2: Indeed footnote 2 was misspelled as 22.

Thank you very much for correcting the vocabulary. It has been included in the revised version of the article.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a review of the revised version of the article. A number of formal and/or language corrections have been made. All such aspects of the article now seem fine.

Essentially, it's the same article as before the revision. It is clear, also in view of the author's response to my first review, that there is no intention of taking up the broader contextualization for which I asked in my review. Thus my criticism of the article is also unchanged. 

In the end, the question is whether this article - as it stands - is of sufficient interest for Arts. I leave this decision to the editors who will (naturally) be in a better position to judge this than I am. As such the article is fine and competently written, although very narrow in its scope and (in my view) lacking in perspective.