Religion, Animals, and Desire in Eden: A Visual Critical Reconsideration of the Naḥash
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A delightful work. I learned a great deal and look forward to re-reading it in the future.
Author Response
Thank you for your confidence in this project.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a rather intriguing paper. It has potential, but needs to be reworked before it can be published. The paper adopts a visual criticism approach to survey various illustrations of the nachash—the snake of the Garden of Eden—in medieval and modern art, which are taken to illustrate the narrative contribution of nonhuman animals, especially with regard to the relationship between human and nonhuman animals and the role of desire. The paper consists of a methodological introduction on image and narrative theory (p. 1-7), a discussion of the biblical account of the creation of humans and the expulsion from Eden in Genesis 2-3 (p. 7-11), the analysis of no less than ten (!) works of art figuring the nachash and ranging from the bronze doors (so-called Bernward doors) of the Hildesheim Cathedral from the early 11th century to the “First Kiss of Adam and Eve” by Salvador Viniegra from 1891 (p. 11-23), and a (very) brief conclusion entitled “Possibilities” (p. 23-24).
The paper contains some interesting insights—especially as regards the role of relationship and desire in the representations of the Genesis account—but also some serious flaws; it should certainly not be published in its present form. The introductory part is too long, and could easily be condensed. In particular, the comparison with visual images from the prehistory brings very little to the overall argument, and only contributes to stretching further the already excessive chronological span covered by the paper. The discussion of other approaches, such as visual exegesis and reception exegesis, is also confusing: does the author mention these approaches because she uses them, and if so, how do they contribute to the overall argument? The discussion on the Genesis account is a rather literal and, at time, somewhat naïve reading of the biblical text. Its engagement with critical exegesis of the biblical narrative remains rather limited. Again, the purpose of this section is unclear: if the point is to provide a quick background for the following analysis of representations of the nachash in visual images, this can be done much more briefly. If the author seeks to initiate a dialogue between critical approaches to the biblical text and visual criticism, this needs to be done much more substantially. The analysis of visual images, which forms the bulk of the paper, is very broad, and combines images which have little in common besides the connection to the Garden of Eden story. In and of itself, this is not necessarily an issue, but the treatment of these images is rather brief and superficial, presumably due to the number of images discussed. In particular, the contextualization of each image is very limited. There is almost no discussion of the historical context in which these images were produced, little or no discussion of the visual codes used at that time, and usually no discussion of similar images or sources with which an image can be compared. Larger questions remain likewise unaddressed: for instance, since all the images studied in that section of the paper relate in one way or another to European Christian culture, what is the role played by the traditional identification in that culture of the nachash with the devil? As far as this reader can see, the question is simply never addressed. The discussion is not helped by the fact that anachronistic categories, like “speciesism” are projected onto medieval and early modern images. Overall, and from a strictly art history point of view, the discussion does not go beyond a superficial description of various images and looks rather amateurish. It would have been much better to study fewer images, but in a more thorough and comprehensive way. The final opening is extremely short (less than one page!) and brings little to the discussion. It is framed as a series of general comments and suggestions for further research, whose connection with the previous discussion is not particularly obvious.
On the whole, the paper contains some good insights but lacks a clear focus and remains overly superficial in its treatment of both the biblical narrative and the visual images addressing that narrative. The role of late antique and medieval Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Eden story, in particular, needs to be better taken into account, and the discussion of visual images needs to be based on a smaller selection subjected to a substantially more thorough treatment.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive feedback.
I have completely reworked the paper, and I hope it secures your and the editors' approvals. Adjustments include:
1) I have deleted mention of the ancient cave art; it was too distracting from the paper's central subject.
2) I have cut and reworked the introductory section so it moves more quickly into the theory sections.
3) I moved the extended review of the Garden of Eden story to the paper's end, as an Appendix.
4) Contrary to your encouragement, this paper continues to use a visual exegetical approach instead of an art history approach. Not only is the latter not my area of expertise, it would take the project into digressions that--though fascinating--would detract from the paper's objective.
5) I have expanded and sharpened analysis of each image, linking them explicitly to biblical texts, to highlight how they are in conversation with/against biblical sources.
6) I have greatly expanded the concluding section, adding scholarship to the conversation to enrich some of the paper's last questions and implications.
7) Throughout the paper I corrected the transliteration of the Hebrew: it should be naḥash, not nachash.
Again, I appreciate your advice and concerns. I think this version of the project is more focused and compelling.
Reviewer 3 Report
Some problems appear to be connected with what must have been an oral presentation. For example a “This” appears around lines 419 and 493 that appear to refer to a slide that has not yet been presented. Also the beginning should be rewritten to make it more concise—more directly relevant to the subject of the paper—more directly about the snake in the Garden of Eden. For example I am not certain how relevant the discussion of cave paintings is to this subject. And some of the theoretical discussion could be cut.
Author Response
I am grateful for your constructive feedback.
I have completely reworked the paper, and I hope it secures their and the editors' approvals. Adjustments include:
1) I have deleted mention of the ancient cave art; it was too distracting from the paper's central subject.
2) I have cut and reworked the introductory section so it moves more quickly into the theory sections.
3) I moved the extended review of the Garden of Eden story to the paper's end, as an Appendix.
4) Contrary to the encouragement of one reviewer, this paper continues to use a visual exegetical approach instead of an art history approach. Not only is the latter not my area of expertise, it would take the project into digressions that--though fascinating--would detract from the paper's objective.
5) I have expanded and sharpened analysis of each image, linking them explicitly to biblical texts, to highlight how they are in conversation with/against biblical sources.
6) I have greatly expanded the concluding section, adding scholarship to the conversation to enrich some of the paper's last questions and implications.
7) Throughout the paper I corrected the transliteration of the Hebrew: it should be naḥash, not nachash.
Again, I appreciate your advice and concerns. I think this version of the project is more focused and compelling.
