The Prague-Frankfurt Orient Express: Eschatology, New Humanism, and the Birth of Dialogical Thinking

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author of this article explores the cultural and historical affinities between two intellectual groups that were active in central Europe in the first part of the 20^th century--the Patmos Circle and the Prague Circle, with a particular focus on the place that dialogical thinking took up in their respective philosophies. The author uses her analysis in order to shed light on the construction of minoritarian identities in the German and Czech contexts, pointing to the political issues underlying the the cultural and philosophical concerns of the two groups in question.  It is a well-researched and well-written article that will benefit readers of your publication. I found the terminological distinctions between “schools” and “epicenters” to be unnecessary and a bit distracting from what was new and interesting about the piece. 

 

 

The text will be relevant to scholars interested in dialogical theology, Franz Rosenzweig, Martin Buber, Max Brod, German-Jewish thought, interfaith relations, and Central European intellectual history.  

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive review and encouraging feedback. I’m glad to hear that you found the article well-researched and relevant to the readers of your publication.

1. Removed Terminological Distinctions: In response to your suggestion, I have removed all references to the distinction between “epicenter” and “school.” I agree that these terms were not essential to the main argument and may have distracted from the more novel aspects of the piece.

I appreciate your insights and believe the article is now stronger as a result of your suggestions. Thank you again for your support.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper describes an interesting histoical constellation with some erudition (albeit also some gaps, see above), but it lacks a coherent argument. The author proposes to discuss what he calls "gaps in particularism" (line 98) but actually does not really come back to this problem but rather narrates the history of different thinkers and different groups of mostly German Jewish intellectuals of the interwar Years

Second, the paper is not very well organized and thus difficult to read. The introduction repeats the abstract, the first chapter lingers back and forth between different positions and groups and lacks a clear outline. This continues throughout the paper which moves from Brod to the Journal "Die Kreatur" (Brod was no contributor), to the Patmoskreis that preceded "Die Kreatur" to the Fortekreis that preceded the Patmoskreis and actually had rather different goals, then back to Barth and Rosenzweig that are somewhat contemporary to the Patmoskreis. During this trajectory, there are a number of interesting reading but the lack of either a historical sucession or a systematic argument makes it difficult to read. Added referenes to other issues and persons as Franz Kafka are additionally distracting. Moreover, it is not clear what kind of readership the author has in mind: at times he seems to expect a reader little familiar with the entire issue (as in the chapter on Barth resp. Rosenzweig), at times he engages in rather detailed arguements that clearly presuppose a certain familiarty with the issue e.g. when discussing the contribution of the differrent members of the Fortekreis resp. Patmoskreis..

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough and constructive feedback. I appreciate the time and effort you've taken to provide detailed comments. I have taken your suggestions to heart and made several revisions to improve the coherence, organization, and focus of the paper:

1. Revised Abstract and Introduction: I have revised the abstract so that it no longer repeats the first paragraph of the introduction. The introduction has also been refined to clarify the key points and to set up the argument more effectively.
  
2. Clarified and Amplified Argument on “Gaps in Particularism”: I have worked extensively on clarifying and substantiating the concept of “gaps in particularism” throughout the paper. This includes a more focused discussion that ties the concept back to the historical context and the thinkers being analyzed. All changes are highlighted for your review.

3. Improved Organization and Removed Distractions: I have restructured the paper to enhance its organization and readability. The historical narrative has been streamlined, and distracting references that detracted from the main argument have been removed. This has allowed for a more systematic presentation of the ideas, making the paper easier to follow.

I hope these revisions address your concerns and contribute to making the paper stronger. I look forward to any further feedback you may have.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article offers a few new insights into the knowledge of the so-called Prague circle, it mostly revolves around personalities like Franz Rosenzweig and Martin Buber and their philosophic-theological contributions who had little in common with the Prague circle. Tracing back a possible - yet questionable - influence that Franz Rosenzweig or Martin Buber, both members of the Patmos group, would have had on the Prague circle - and especially on the way thinkers and authors of the Prague circle reflected upon key-concepts such as “dialogue”, “dialogical thinking”, “creatureliness” etc. – would have been meritorious, but the article does not provide such a thing. On the contrary, in chapter 2 it shows how Prague authors like Kafka were received in the Berlin quarterly “Die Kreatur”. Moreover, it is rather questionable whether large digressions on Karl Barth or the Fortekreis can somehow contribute to the understanding of the relationship between the Patmos group and the Prague circle, especially since the article fails to even briefly mention other notable personalities of the Prague circle (Werfel, Kisch, Kornfeld etc.)

The abstract repeats almost identically the formulations from the introduction, it is not a summary of how the thesis is connected to the arguments in its favor. In fact, the thesis is hardly retraceable. In the abstract is being promised that the term “epicenters” is going to be used instead of “school” to better highlight “the dynamic and innovative role that [Prague circle’s] writers played in the peripheries of the nationalistic literary and cultural canons of their time”, yet there is no usage of the term “epicenter” in the article itself after all.  

Some metaphors used in the headings – cf. Orient-Express or Coda –, as ingenious as they might sound, are not supported by the facts described. Why naming the conclusion a coda, when the preceding parts of the article have nothing to do with the movements of a musical structure? All in all, the article could better structure the wealth of information it uses. It should reorganize its argumentation in a manifestly contrastive sense – Patmos group vs. Prague circle – and show what are the essential differences between each other in thinking/ enacting the concepts of assimilation vs. emancipation, or dialogism, respectively. To this aim, it should better contextualize the situation of each author - Prague after WWI vs. Weimarer Republik - and it should not engage in inferences lacking evidence, like e.g. the Patmos group and the Prague circle being equally responsible for the birth of a dialogical thinking. 

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed feedback on the article. I appreciate the time and effort you’ve taken to engage with the nuances of the paper and to provide constructive criticism.

1) Purpose and Argumentation: I want to clarify that the aim of this paper is not to establish or refute a direct influence between the Patmos group and the Prague circle. Rather, my goal is to articulate the trajectory of a cross-pollination of ideas without tracing explicit vectors of influence. To this end, I have centered my argument on the concept of "Dialogfähigkeit," which I believe better captures the subtle and complex exchanges between these intellectual circles. 

2) Barth and the Fortekreis: The discussion of Karl Barth and the lesser-known Fortekreis is not intended as a digression but as an exploration of the internal dynamics and disagreements within the Patmos group. These aspects are integral to understanding the broader intellectual landscape that influenced, directly or indirectly, the Prague circle. The inclusion of this background is meant to shed light on the diversity of thought within the Patmos group, which complicates the straightforward tracing of influence.

3) Revisions: In response to your feedback, I have made several revisions. I have completely removed the use of "epicenter" and revised metaphors that were not adequately supported by the content. Additionally, I have restructured the paper within a more contrastive framework, aiming to make the differences between the Patmos group and the Prague circle more apparent and meaningful.

4) Engagement with Prague Circle Personalities: I acknowledge the need to better contextualize the Prague circle and its key figures. While the article does focus on the contributions of figures like Franz Rosenzweig and Martin Buber, I agree that more attention should be given to other notable personalities of the Prague circle; however, my focus is on Brod. This will help to provide a more balanced examination of the intellectual milieu in which the circles' common theological ideas were born and ensure that the connections drawn between Prague and Patmos are substantiated.

5) Abstract and Structure: I appreciate your comments on the abstract and have revised it to better reflect the core arguments of the paper and how they are developed. The abstract now provides a more concise summary that connects the thesis to the supporting arguments. I have also removed the promise to use the term "epicenter," as this was not followed through in the article, and have ensured that the metaphors and headings align more closely with the content.

Please note that I have highlighted all changes in the body of the text for ease of consideration instead of giving you line numbers.

Thank you again for your insightful critique. I am confident that these revisions will strengthen the article and address the concerns you have raised. I look forward to your thoughts on the revised version.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am happy that the author has taken the comments of the review seriously and has improved the paper. I think it is a good paper now and can be publihed in its present form.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your constructive reaction to my comments. I find the article now to be publishable, its thesis is clearly stated and its arguments are better interconnected. The cross-pollination you mentioned moves the analysis from the field of reception history towards the history of ideas which is a more appropriate method to investigate the facts your thesis is based upon. By doing so, all references to Karl Barth or the Fortekreis become relevant for a broader basin to be considered in the circulation of the ideas your article focuses on.