The Sanctification of the Disabled: A Study on the Images of Fortune Gods in Japanese Folk Beliefs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a potentially interesting article that, once revised, could contribute to the literature on lived religion in Japan, by widening the knowledge of popular but little-studied practices.

I would suggest that the title be changed since it is very generic and that the objective and relevance of this study be more clearly stated. I would suggest that the Author consider (studies on) disability in Japan, to achieve a richer understanding of the topic and better develop his/her analysis.

Conclusions need to be rewritten: the meaning is unclear.

More specific comments follow.

·     Line 19: Saying that “The longing for a happy life is the same for all countries and ethnicities” is an overgeneralization.

·     Line 22: I would suggest specifying when the figure of the Fortune Gods spread in Asia.

·     Line 54: Please add references to comparison as “one of the most indispensable methods in the study of religion”.

·     Line 62 (and elsewhere in the text): Change the word “handicapped” with “disabled”.

·     Lines 65-69: Where, when and how did the Author use “field work methods”? Which are the “textual sources” used? Where, when and how did the Author “visit and conduct research at relevant shrines and temples”? This does not emerge from the text and needs to be clarified.

·    Lines 87: Is “Seven Lucky Gods” a novel? An essay?

·  Lines 113: Who are the “many people” who “believe Hiruko had infantile paralysis”? Please, add references.

·  Line 120: It is not clear in what sense whales, sharks and dolphins “were inexhaustible and abundant wealth to residents”.

·   Lines 125-131: I would suggest clarifying the connection between the marebito and Ebisu, as it is not very clear.

·  Lines 147-148: I would suggest that the Author improve the explanation of “syncretism”, by making explicit reference to the honji suijaku paradigm.

·     Lines 154-155: Where does this quote come from?

·     Line 163: Is there any evidence that people (all?) see Daitoku “as a dull-witted figure”? The source used is rather old and cannot therefore be used to describe the current situation.

·     Lines 173: When was this text published? Add dates.

·  Lines 193-195: Is this a “belief”? Did someone else analyse Bishamonten as disabled?

·     Line 205: Add references for this “one theory”.

·     Line 207: Add references for the “another theory”.

·  Lines 218-219: Add references for the text “Research on the Seven Lucky Gods”.

·  Lines 224-225: Add references: who says that “people generally believe this appearance is close to dwarfism”? On what basis?

·     Lines 237-238: Where does this quote come from?

·     Lines 250: It could be useful to add a brief description of the Eight Immortals: it is quite unclear why they are mentioned and the text could benefit from clarification.

·     Lines 255: Is there evidence that Fukusuke is referred to as “gods” (kami?)?

·     Lines 266-293: Add references: who are the authors of the theories presented?

·     Lines 295: Where does this quote come from?

·     Line 349: Add references.

·     Lines 364-367: This has already been said.

·     Line 383: They do not “possess” supernatural abilities, but they “are believed to possess” them.

·     Lines 385-398: This has already been said.

·     Lines 401-402: Where does this quote come from?

·     Lines 412: Add references.

·     Line 427: Add references.

·  Line 455-458: This needs to be clarified. Moreover: where does this quote come from?

     ·     Line 462-464: There is a fundamental difference between the Seven Gods and the other figures presented: while the former are gods, the latter were common humans and were not deified. I believe this should be taken into account and examined. Could it be the case that since the Seven Gods present impairments, Fukusuke and Sendai Shiro, after their death, have been associated with them? 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language is required.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions. The manuscript was revised accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See comments attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions. The manuscript was revised accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the article needs to be reviewed in more detail. I would suggest that the Author explain more clearly the objective, relevance and methods of this study, as well as the conclusions which, as I wrote in my first review, need to be rewritten: the meaning is not clear.

 

More specific comments follow.

·  Line 45: The meaning of this sentence is not clear.

·  Line 48: I would suggest using a more academic form to replace ‘I am curious’.

· Lines 54: This paper does not analyse the ‘mechanism of fortune god deification’. Analysing this aspect would certainly improve it.

· Lines 57-60: This explanation is not clear. Furthermore, the reference is incorrect: the subtitle of the study is missing and the year of publication is wrong: it was published in 1986, not 2000.

· Lines 69-77: What kind of “textual data” were used? The paper does not ‘discuss visits made to and research conducted at relevant shrines and temples’ and the example provided is not convincing: how was this fieldwork organized? Did the Author interview anyone? How was the observation conducted? How many temples and shrines were visited? How was the selection made? These elements should be clarified and should emerge from the analysis and discussion of the topic.

·  Line 114: When was Kojiki written? Please, specify.

·  Line 117: When was Nihon shoki written? Please, specify.

· Line 130: It is still not clear in what sense whales, sharks and dolphins “were inexhaustible and abundant source of wealth to residents”. The Author should explain it as s/he did in the response to my first review.

· Lines 164-174: I would suggest that the Author explain this better, deleting the repetitions. Reference to the relationship between temples and shrines is not necessary.

· Line 197: The text Great Collection on the Origins of the Three Teachings was written in 1990?

· Lines 229-233: Who are the proponents of these two different theories? They cannot both have been formulated by Yamamoto. Perhaps what the author meant to say is that according to Yamamoto there are two different theories.

·  Line 243: When was the text Research on the Seven Lucky Gods written?

·  Lines 291-293: Add reference to the mentioned homepages.

·  Lines 495-497: I would suggest that the Author elaborates on this point to make it clearer. Another aspect that is necessary to make clear (here and elsewhere in the paper) is the meaning of ‘deification’: did temples and/or shrines perform rituals to make these two figures deities? Were they actually deified?

·  Lines 500-504: The meaning is unclear.

·  Lines 500-504: Is the Author sure that today ‘Japanese folk beliefs consider that disability or deformity is an extraordinary, transcendent way for superhuman spirits to manifest’? On what basis can this be stated?

·  Lines 514-516: The meaning is unclear.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions and support.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

N/A

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions and support.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been improved. I would suggest the Author dedicate more space to the analysis of his/her fieldwork as it could contribute to the discussion.