Evolution of the Sacrificial Ritual to the South Sea God in Song China
Dewei Zhang
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper about the evolution of the sacrificial ritual to the South Sea God in Song China is coherently organized and clearly argued. I suggest that it be accepted by Religions for publication with some modifications. Below are some suggestions to which the author may want to respond when revising the paper.
1. The first two sentences in the abstract are very important, but the logic between them should and could be improved. With this modification, we expect to better understand why the topic should be discussed again and why it should be approached in the specific way as suggested by the author.
2. Two good questions are raised at the end of the first paragraph, but they should be better contextualized less their appearance looks a little abrupt.
3. The goddess Tian Fei is repeatedly mentioned in the paper as an important comparison, so it might be advisable to cite more research on the goddess, which is indeed rich. In fact, given that scholars have paid much attention to folk religion in China, it seems necessary for the author to cite more studies in the field.
4. P. 5: “quest their thirst” – ”quench their thirst”?
5. P. 6: Cheng Mengshi- Cheng Shimeng?
6. P. 11: 薩提達摩-菩提達摩?
7. P. 14: “On the one hand, the first Chinese characters of the names all mean "first" and "foremost", showing the local community's intention of sharing the blessings equally.” - Does the author really believe that these characters 大、原、始、長、祖 all mean “first” and “foremost”?
8. P. 16: shatianliyi- why is a pinyin rather its English translation kept here?
9. I strongly suggest that the author double checks all translations. There are quite a few of minor problems. Below are some instances:
p. 4 本州長吏:
設醮
執兵
P.5 僧宗淨刻
僧宗淨刻…中書門下牒
P.6 瀕海郡邑靡不建祠
p.7 故凡祠廟賜額、封號，多在熙寧、元祐、崇寧、宣和之時
p.8 自渡江以後
所謂聽命
龍興之地
知荊門軍
p. 9. 島民不安
凡臣（錢之望）所禱
p. 10 粥罷東窗未肯光
漏聲新覺五更長
P. 14 海光寺 凝真觀
Author Response
- The first two sentences in the abstract are very important, but the logic between them should and could be improved. With this modification, we expect to better understand why the topic should be discussed again and why it should be approached in the specific way as suggested by the author.
Response: We’ve made several revisions in the Abstract according to your comments to clarify the logic, while the main idea has not changed. And we’ve deleted several lines to make the Abstract more concise.
- Two good questions are raised at the end of the first paragraph, but they should be better contextualized less their appearance looks a little abrupt.
Response: We’ve revised the first paragraph and the third paragraph in Introduction to make the research questions better contextualized.
- The goddess Tian Fei is repeatedly mentioned in the paper as an important comparison, so it might be advisable to cite more research on the goddess, which is indeed rich. In fact, given that scholars have paid much attention to folk religion in China, it seems necessary for the author to cite more studies in the field.
Response: We’ve added an explanation in the Notes to elaborate on the research of Tian Fei by citing some key scholars in China, Japan and western countries, and we also added their works in the References.
- 5: “quest their thirst” – ”quench their thirst”?
Response: Yes, we’ve corrected it. Thank you.
- 6: Cheng Mengshi- Cheng Shimeng?
Response: Yes, we’ve corrected it. Thank you.
- 11: 薩提達摩-菩提達摩?
Response: Yes, we’ve corrected it. Thank you.
- 14: “On the one hand, the first Chinese characters of the names all mean "first" and "foremost", showing the local community's intention of sharing the blessings equally.” - Does the author really believe that these characters 大、原、始、長、祖all mean “first” and “foremost”?
Response: We understand that these five characters do not mean “first” and “foremost” literally, but the reference we quote here emphasize their shared meaning of “first” and “foremost”. Therefore, we’ve changed the term “mean” into “emphasize” in my revised paper.
- 16: shatianliyi- why is a pinyin rather its English translation kept here?
Response: We’ve offered a footnote to explain this term.
- I strongly suggest that the author double checks all translations. There are quite a few of minor problems. Below are some instances:
Response: We try our best to correct all these problems in the article, except 所謂聽命 and 海光寺 凝真觀 whose translations are supported by English expressions we find online and thus remain the same.
- 4 本州長吏:
設醮
執兵
P.5 僧宗淨刻
僧宗淨刻…中書門下牒
P.6 瀕海郡邑靡不建祠
p.7 故凡祠廟賜額、封號，多在熙寧、元祐、崇寧、宣和之時
p.8 自渡江以後
所謂聽命
龍興之地
知荊門軍
- 9. 島民不安
凡臣（錢之望）所禱
- 10 粥罷東窗未肯光
漏聲新覺五更長
- 14 海光寺凝真觀
Thank you once again for your helpful comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review report
Thanks for having this opportunity to review this very interesting article. Below are some of my concerns and suggestions for the authors to consider when revising.
1. I am not quite sure of the research questions of this study. The authors propose two clear questions on page 2 (lines 60-63), which seem to be the research questions. But then they continue to flag up eight questions on pages 2-3 (lines 97-108), saying that 'taking these questions as points of departure' (p. 3 line 108). This makes it rather confusing what questions this article actually focuses on. Despite the seeming interrelatedness of some of these questions, I am also sceptical about how one 18-page article can address so many questions (ten questions in total). Kindly suggest that the authors reconsider the main research questions in this article and make them clearer in expression.
2. On page 3: Kindly suggest the authors add some information regarding the research method and the documents used for analysis at the end of the Introduction. The reference list shows that this article primarily uses historical texts for analysis. This should be clarified. I wonder how these written documents are analyzed. A brief message would help.
3. On page 3: The authors may briefly mention the main arguments at the end of the Introduction. Another piece of advice for the authors is to provide an outline of the following sections before moving into the next Section 2. This would help prepare readers for what is covered throughout the article.
4. Suggest the authors add one section to clarify the basic timeline of how the South Sea God changed before the Song Dynasty and then guide the readers to focus on the Song Dynasty, which is the topic of this article. The timeline in the current manuscript is unclear; thus, readers may be confused about why the authors focus only on Song Dynasty from the beginning. I have provided some more detailed feedback below.
5. On page 12, lines 596-598: This point is not that clear. I wonder if the authors could offer a bit more clarification of how Confucianism 'showcased its supreme importance given by the regime' in the stories.
6. On page 13, first paragraph: This paragraph offers some information regarding the evolutionary history of the South Sea God before the Song Dynasty. Is it viable to move it, along with some supplementary words if necessary, to an added section that clarifies the timeline (as suggested before)?
7. On page 13, lines 638-646: This part looks like a conclusive one and thus may be moved to be part of the Conclusion.
8. On page 13, lines 663-668: This part is a bit repetitive as the Six Lords appeared at the turn of the Northern Song Dynasty and Southern Song Dynasty, as clarified on page 12. But the third point presented here mainly addresses what changes were made AFTER Song Dynasty. Therefore, the authors may consider deleting or moving the part in lines 663-668 to avoid repetition and self-contradiction.
9. On page 13, lines 668-672: This point requires clarifications. For example, what 'new interpretations of the beliefs' were developed after the Song Dynasty?
10. On page 14, line725: I am not quite sure if the authors have offered a clarification for the term shatianliyi. This term also appears on page 16, line 846, without a clarification.
11. On page 15, lines 756-786: The entire 'Fifth' aspect looks unclear as it primarily compares the South Sea God and Tian Fei in the Song Dynasty; however, this part should address the changes of the South Sea God AFTER Song Dynasty as the authors have promised at the beginning of Section 6.
12. On page 15, lines 788-790: These few sentences could be moved to the Introduction as they clarify the topic and purpose of this article, which readers should know as early as in the beginning.
Thanks again for the chance to offer comments for this article. Hope the authors may find the suggestions above useful.
Author Response
- I am not quite sure of the research questions of this study. The authors propose two clear questions on page 2 (lines 60-63), which seem to be the research questions. But then they continue to flag up eight questions on pages 2-3 (lines 97-108), saying that 'taking these questions as points of departure' (p. 3 line 108). This makes it rather confusing what questions this article actually focuses on. Despite the seeming interrelatedness of some of these questions, I am also sceptical about how one 18-page article can address so many questions (ten questions in total). Kindly suggest that the authors reconsider the main research questions in this article and make them clearer in expression.
Response: Our main research questions are still on page 2 (lines 51-53 in the revised manuscript), and we reduced the number of the original sub-questions from eight into four on the page (lines 88-93). We believe that the four sub-questions help to explain the two main research questions in details, and thus it is appropriate to put them at the end of the Introduction to prepare the reader for what would come next.
- On page 3: Kindly suggest the authors add some information regarding the research method and the documents used for analysis at the end of the Introduction. The reference list shows that this article primarily uses historical texts for analysis. This should be clarified. I wonder how these written documents are analyzed. A brief message would help.
Response: We’ve added a sentence (lines 94-97) to clarify this point. Thank you very much for your suggestion.
- On page 3: The authors may briefly mention the main arguments at the end of the Introduction. Another piece of advice for the authors is to provide an outline of the following sections before moving into the next Section 2. This would help prepare readers for what is covered throughout the article.
Response: We believe the four sub-questions mentioned above (lines 88-93) also serve as an outline of the following sections.
- Suggest the authors add one section to clarify the basic timeline of how the South Sea God changed before the Song Dynasty and then guide the readers to focus on the Song Dynasty, which is the topic of this article. The timeline in the current manuscript is unclear; thus, readers may be confused about why the authors focus only on Song Dynasty from the beginning. I have provided some more detailed feedback below.
Response: We agree that a basic timeline can help the readers better understand the context of my research, but we are afraid the paper would be too long if we add one entire section for the timeline. Instead, we’ve added three sentences in the beginning of Section Two (lines 102-107) to discuss how the South Sea God changed from Sui to Tang, and then focus on the Song dynasty.
- On page 12, lines 596-598: This point is not that clear. I wonder if the authors could offer a bit more clarification of how Confucianism 'showcased its supreme importance given by the regime' in the stories.
Response: We’ve explained that “government officials submitted reports to turn the four local gods, which conformed to the ritual system, into the auxiliaries of the South Sea God.” (line 602-604)
- On page 13, first paragraph: This paragraph offers some information regarding the evolutionary history of the South Sea God before the Song Dynasty. Is it viable to move it, along with some supplementary words if necessary, to an added section that clarifies the timeline (as suggested before)?
Response: Yes, and we moved it to explain the timeline in the beginning of Section Two.
- On page 13, lines 638-646: This part looks like a conclusive one and thus may be moved to be part of the Conclusion.
Response: We did not move this part because we believe these sentences help to connect the previous paragraph with the following paragraphs to demonstrate what happened after the Song dynasty.
- On page 13, lines 663-668: This part is a bit repetitive as the Six Lords appeared at the turn of the Northern Song Dynasty and Southern Song Dynasty, as clarified on page 12. But the third point presented here mainly addresses what changes were made AFTER Song Dynasty. Therefore, the authors may consider deleting or moving the part in lines 663-668 to avoid repetition and self-contradiction.
Response: We deleted the part “making new gods, such as the Six Lords, as auxiliaries to the South Sea God”.
- On page 13, lines 668-672: This point requires clarifications. For example, what 'new interpretations of the beliefs' were developed after the Song Dynasty?
Response: We deleted this part as we don’t find it relevant to the argument.
- On page 14, line725: I am not quite sure if the authors have offered a clarification for the term shatianliyi. This term also appears on page 16, line 846, without a clarification.
Response: We’ve offered an explanation in the Notes.
- On page 15, lines 756-786: The entire 'Fifth' aspect looks unclear as it primarily compares the South Sea God and Tian Fei in the Song Dynasty; however, this part should address the changes of the South Sea God AFTER Song Dynasty as the authors have promised at the beginning of Section 6.
Response: We added a sentence at the beginning of the fifth aspect as follows: “The South Sea God and Tian Fei are both popular on the southeast coast of China today, which is closely related to their development trajectories after the Song Dynasty”. (line 758-759)
- On page 15, lines 788-790: These few sentences could be moved to the Introduction as they clarify the topic and purpose of this article, which readers should know as early as in the beginning.
Response: We moved the sentences to the Introduction as we mentioned above. Thank you once again for all your helpful comments and suggestion.
