Sitting on the Lakeshore: Guardini’s Letters from Lake Como Retold

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Please see attached.

Author Response

see file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

General feedback

1. This paper is really interesting and should be publishable once it is revised.

2. The author needs to focus on the main topic, the research question. Only then can the title be adapted to reach more audience, and not only those familiar with Guardini. The title could be changed to something like this: ‘Reading Guardini on Culture through Balthasar’s insights’ or something in this line.

3. The introduction is rather long spread out in four pages. Can be it shorter and more to the point?

4. As a general rule, I suggest the author avoids first person singular or plural references in an academic text. E.g. line 9, 55, 129, 132, 135, 141, footnote 14, 274, 535.

5. Could this article include other secondary sources other than Roland Millare as referenced in footnote no. 5? It’s good to hear more voices on this theme.

6. Sub-headings. I think these should be somehow revised. As they stand: Introduction; Guardini and the Lake; Comments and Groundless, are not enticing and informaive for the reader.

7. Both in the text and in the footnotes section, use the name ‘Balthasar’, hence omit ‘von’ each time.

8. I was surprised that Guardini’s ‘dialectic of polar opposition’ is generally absent in this essay. Would it be tighter with a reference to this idea?

9. The essay lacks reference to three ideas: (1) paradox is not mentioned even once; (2) the difference between letters 1-8 and letters 9-10 is not evidenced and stressed in this work;

10. Just a thought. Instead of “lyrical and scholarly tone” (line 95), could one say that the difference between Balthasar and Guardini is philosophical? Balthasar perhaps being more Platonic, while Guardini on this matter is different?

11. Reference to Martin Buber is a must. Guardini relies on the Buber’s thought on the interpersonal character of human life—on the “I – Thou” to explain the constructive dialogue between Christian belief and modernity.

12. Guardini’s view is also christological. Saying that Guardini’s view is groundless, risks ignoring his insistance that in Christ everything comes together and that Christ” and “truth” are used by Guardini interchangeably.

13. line 64. Is sentiment a term that Guardini uses or the author of the paper? Does it make justice to Guardini?

 

Comments

The following can be removed from the text: ‘however’, ‘For sure’, ‘unfortunately’, ‘Yet’, ‘ Significantly’, ‘Thus’, etc.

Line 4. I am not ‘distilled’ is the right verb here.

Line 39. ‘so to speak’ REMOVE all colloqualisms.

Line 55 ‘I believe it is beneficial to return to’ rephrase. Remove colloquialism.

Line 250 Henri Ford -> Henry Ford

Line 274-5 I think this should be deleted: ‘I will return soon to these subjects’

Line 280 I think this should be deleted: ‘I will return to this term’

Line 293 Not ‘primate’ (apes or monkeys), but ‘primacy’.

Line 564 ‘resist technology’ ? or its implications?

The English command is good.

Author Response

see file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf