Ritual, Daoist Temple, and Geography: Spatial Interpretation of Wang Lingguan’s Belief

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Page 3: line 89

李豐「楙」

 

2.Wrong assumption 

The fundamental assumption of the duality of sacred and secular spaces, Eliade's theory on sacred and secular spaces, may not apply to the Chinese context. Lee Fongmao (Li Fengmao) has developed indigenous theories of Chinese popular religion and Daoism, such as the dynamic relationship  between the normal and the abnormal, （常與非常）, or the transition between the origin and the variations （本相與變相）, etc.

Do not borrow terms, theories, and concepts directly from Western scholarship without critical review and reflection.

 

3. maps

Speaking of geography of the spread of the cult, the author should have drawn maps to demonstrate the spatial distribution. Unfortunately, the data of the temples were not complete and representative, so the result is not convincing enough.

 

 

4. Page 6

Hierarchy of deities and spatial order: not convincing enough

City god/temple god belong to lower-level deities

Protector belongs to heavenly deities

Basing on the aforementioned wrong assumption.

 

5. 

遂奏玉帝→imitating bureaucratic system (Taoist mirrors bureaucracy)

 There are a lot of studies discussing the phenomena. The author should familiarize the scholarship and state of field.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some Western terminologies of religious studies or the titles of Western deities should not be directly translated or borrowed in the Chinese context, which can cause readers misunderstanding the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good, simple, and straightforward paper. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some copy-editing is needed. The texts has some typos or grammatical errors (eg. lines 112, 120, 366, 492, fig. 5 Zungming=Zunming). Often the article "the" is forgotten, or should a plural be used, eg. Halls instead of Hall. Also, after a period there is always a space.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

On the whole, this is an excellent article, and the research is exhaustive. I detect no major issue (see however my remarks below on space and ritual).

A few points that may help in the finalization of the contribution:

- The language is in general clear and accurate, but it is slightly less so towards the end. The term "idol" should be avoided, and in the context where it is used could be substituted by "image" or "representation." Likewise, in the conclusion the sentence "we can provide a relatively clear answer to the belief in Wang Lingguan' does not make much sense. Without further specification "the belief in" per se is not a question. A few similar issues need to be tackled.

- It is surprising to see the first reference to the sacred/profane distinction taken from Eliade (who has nothing to contribute in the context of this article). The first reference should be to Durkheim. Conversely, referencing first to Durkheim when speaking of ritual is not very accurate. Better to refer to scholars more focused on ritual activities, and probably more recent ones such as Catherine Bell for instance. More generally, the knowledge of the author as to the literature on sacredness as well as on ritual studies is poor. No special development is required here but the referencing is not helpful.

Actually, the developments on geographical space are stronger than the ones on specific rituals. One could expect analyses on  the way a specific ritual makes use of a sacred space, negotiates its frontiers so to speak, in the line of the ethnographic work conducted by John Lagerwey for instance. The relationship between "space' and "ritual" requires further elucidation. The real focus of the article is on "space', not on "ritual", which is fine as long as the concepts and focus are clarified.

The weaknesses I just underline weigh on the conclusion, which could be strengthened.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No major issues. Some rectifications to be made, especially in the second half.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf