“Buddhist-Christian Style”: The Collaboration of Prip-Møller and Reichelt—From Longchang Si to Tao Fong Shan Christian Centre

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I like the information assembled in the paper and would like to learn more about it to expand my knowledge concerning the mechanisms and logics of cultural exchange.

However, the title and the content do not fit and the paper tries (unsuccessfully) to combine two storylines. I would suggest following only one of the two stories, either Reichel/ Prip-Moeller or the western perception of Buddhist architectur ein China over time. Each choice would have different consequences and requre different methodological competences.

The former would mean to go deeper in the biographies of the the actors and their work relationship. It would further mean to actually discuss the threefold interlink between Reichels thoughts, Prip-Moellers work with his book and the building complex of the Christian Centre. This approach requres substantial competence in architectural history and an actual analysis of the intriguing source material, both historical and contemporary.

The latter would mean to discuss cultural transfers and knowledge production concerning architecture in missinonary context. There is quite a bit of research available in this regard (mostly in English), encompssing perspectives from architeture, religious studies, history.... both from western and Asian scholars. This would mean to clarify basic concepts such as e.g. the relationship between "Buddhist architecture" and "Chinese architecture" over time or the use of topoi in travel accounts.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your suggestions. We have made major revisions to the manuscript and selected the collaboration between Prip-Møller and Reichelt as the main focus. The title has been revised to “Buddhist-Christian Style: The Collaboration of Prip-Møller and Reichelt -- From Longchang Si to the Tao Fong Shan Christian Centre.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper discusses the interesting topic of the adoption of Buddhist architectural forms by Christian missionaries and architects in creating Christian churches and converting the Chinese population in the early 20th century. While many old churches in China were built after the Western style, highlighting Buddhist-style constructions brought freshness to the field of study. The case study, focusing on the Tao Fong Shan in Hong Kong, achieved an effective focal point for the overall narrative.

 

While the paper attempts to also achieve the goal of describing the early history of the Christian transmission to China beginning in the Tang dynasty, I found the part on the struggles of the Nestorian church in establishing a Chinese foothold of little relevance of the second half of the paper. The author(s) might consider to shorten significantly or even drop the part from page 3, line 124 (section 3) to page 11, line 404, which covers the early means of visual documentation such as sketches and water colors. It seems that the photographic documentation from page 20, line 405 (section 3.3) holds a much greater value, interest, and relevance to the discussion on the Tao Fong Shan.

The author has demonstrated a solid grasp of the general history of the Christian’s fascination with Chinese architecture and landscape, supplementing the discussion with interesting and significant visual materials in addition to snapshots from travelogues and books. For Tao Fong Shan, the use of architectural drawings, renderings, and maps in combination with the on-site photographs was a successful visual strategy.

One major problem in the paper’s methodology is the lack of ample architectural and visual analysis to support the author’s claims. The rich visual materials require some close looking to validate statements such as “admiration” (p. 13) and “objective recording and authentic expression” (p. 15). One might ask what an “objective perspective” constitute in this context (line 530), especially considering the Orientalist discourse informing the Western perception and reimagination of the “East” in that era, an aspect that the author did not touch upon.

As much as there is an established vocabulary that the author may find useful to analyze photography (composition, light and shadow, contrast, exposure…), architectural analysis also demands a firmer knowledge of the structure, construction, decoration, and configuration of the spatial and physical qualities. The analysis on page 23, lines 786 – 790, mentioning the “octagonal chapel”, the “sloping roofs” and the “horsehead walls” was a promising start; maybe this serves as a prelude for more reading of the architectural style and symbolism to come? Because without architectural analysis, the key argument of the paper—that the Christian indeed appropriated Buddhist forms to host a space of their own intention and purpose—could barely stand.

Another major issue for the author to consider is the use of quotations in the essay. When it comes to the key analysis of Reichel’s and Prip-Moller’s design, the paper quotes excessively from Faber 1994 (ps. 20-21, 23). It would be perhaps more convincing to paraphrase and critique Faber than simply speaking in their words. Similarly, on the photographs, the long quotations (ps. 12-13, 15) call for follow-up analysis or critiques.

Further suggestions:

·        p. 1. Literature review of the study on church architecture in China is a bit thin. Author may consider including recent works done by architectural historians, e.g. Sweeten, Alan Richard. China's Old Churches: The History, Architecture, and Legacy of Catholic Sacred Structures in Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei Province. Netherlands: Brill, 2019.

·        p. 1-2. The note on “Reichel’s integration of Buddhism and alienation of Confucianism” (line 84) is interesting. Why did he take a different strategy from Ricci? Why does the paper select Reichel and what is special about this figure? Is it due to the lack of existing scholarship on him and his work? Does this paper offer new insight into existing issues or does it raise new questions?

·        p. 2-3. Why were the Tao Fong Shan and Longchang Si selected to be the case study? Where is the Longchang Si? The “anthropological field research” (line 115) remains vague in definition.

·        p. 3-11. Interesting to read, very informative. Lacking visual analysis to validate claims such as “exaggerated” and “misunderstanding.” Omit details or drop entirely to achieve a greater focus on the case study in the second part.

·        p. 13. Figure 12. Very interesting shot. Roof uses the chuandou truss in the south. Doesn’t seem Buddhist but still a church—does this alter or support the author’s argument? Note: many images in the paper lack proper citation/source and credit information.

·        p. 13, lines 487-493. The Orientalist sentiments are palpable from the quote. It is probably more than just the Western ignorance or admiration but the exoticization of China.

·        p. 18. The names enumerated here are scholars rather than Christian missionaries. They do not render direct support to the author’s claim of how “Christianity… drew inspiration from Buddhist architecture” (p. 19, lines 608-609). Similarly, the list of Japanese scholars (p. 19) do not seem relevant.

·        p. 20. Biography of Prip-Moller was helpful. His “anthropological methods” remain vague to me (lines 659, 690).

·        p. 21, line 729. What visual qualities make this a “conventional layout”?

·        p. 22, lines 743. Mentions about fengshui was exciting but remains inadequately explained. Fengshui was not exclusively Buddhist.

·        p. 22, Figure 29. One has to note that the design drawing utilized modern drawing skills and standards that were learned from the Western architectural design industry, not from the Buddhists. I was curious who the clients of the Tao Fong Shan were. How were the church used back then? How is it used and by what communities now? How was Christian liturgy—which differed from that of Buddhism—served by the Buddhist-inspired spatial design?

·        p. 23, lines 787-788. Interesting note on the Buddhist and Christian sacred mountains. Any further information? How exactly is the symbolism embodied by the octagonal chapel?

·        p. 25. Photos of the site in nowadays are interesting. Mukden Palace (line 819) is not a Buddhist structure.

·        p. 26, line 826-827. “narrow gate symbolizes the strict monastic rules”—seems like a hasty conclusion. The design of axes, footpaths, and spatial sequences in an architectural layout serves different functions and meanings. More explanation needed for the triple gem table and pillars with couplets (line 831).

·        p. 27, Figure 44. Interesting shots. Masonry domes are atypical to Chinese Buddhist halls. Could be a Christian/Western influence?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your kind suggestions and valuable opinions. We have made major revisions to the manuscript and selected the collaboration between Prip-Møller and Reichelt as the main focus. The title has been revised to “Buddhist-Christian Style: The Collaboration of Prip-Møller and Reichelt -- From Longchang Si to the Tao Fong Shan Christian Centre.”  

The revised manuscript could be found attached and Reply to Reviewer (Point-by-point response) could be found below:

The paper discusses the interesting topic of the adoption of Buddhist architectural forms by Christian missionaries and architects in creating Christian churches and converting the Chinese population in the early 20th century. While many old churches in China were built after the Western style, highlighting Buddhist-style constructions brought freshness to the field of study. The case study, focusing on the Tao Fong Shan in Hong Kong, achieved an effective focal point for the overall narrative.

 While the paper attempts to also achieve the goal of describing the early history of the Christian transmission to China beginning in the Tang dynasty, I found the part on the struggles of the Nestorian church in establishing a Chinese foothold of little relevance of the second half of the paper. The author(s) might consider to shorten significantly or even drop the part from page 3, line 124 (section 3) to page 11, line 404, which covers the early means of visual documentation such as sketches and water colors. It seems that the photographic documentation from page 20, line 405 (section 3.3) holds a much greater value, interest, and relevance to the discussion on the Tao Fong Shan.

The author has demonstrated a solid grasp of the general history of the Christian’s fascination with Chinese architecture and landscape, supplementing the discussion with interesting and significant visual materials in addition to snapshots from travelogues and books. For Tao Fong Shan, the use of architectural drawings, renderings, and maps in combination with the on-site photographs was a successful visual strategy.

One major problem in the paper’s methodology is the lack of ample architectural and visual analysis to support the author’s claims. The rich visual materials require some close looking to validate statements such as “admiration” (p. 13) and “objective recording and authentic expression” (p. 15). One might ask what an “objective perspective” constitute in this context (line 530), especially considering the Orientalist discourse informing the Western perception and reimagination of the “East” in that era, an aspect that the author did not touch upon.

As much as there is an established vocabulary that the author may find useful to analyze photography (composition, light and shadow, contrast, exposure…), architectural analysis also demands a firmer knowledge of the structure, construction, decoration, and configuration of the spatial and physical qualities. The analysis on page 23, lines 786 – 790, mentioning the “octagonal chapel”, the “sloping roofs” and the “horsehead walls” was a promising start; maybe this serves as a prelude for more reading of the architectural style and symbolism to come? Because without architectural analysis, the key argument of the paper—that the Christian indeed appropriated Buddhist forms to host a space of their own intention and purpose—could barely stand.

[Thank you for your suggestions. We have chosen the collaboration between Prip-Møller and Reichelt as the main focus. The title has been revised to “Buddhist-Christian Style: The Collaboration of Prip-Møller and Reichelt -- From Longchang Si to the Tao Fong Shan Christian Centre.” ]

Another major issue for the author to consider is the use of quotations in the essay. When it comes to the key analysis of Reichel’s and Prip-Moller’s design, the paper quotes excessively from Faber 1994 (ps. 20-21, 23). It would be perhaps more convincing to paraphrase and critique Faber than simply speaking in their words. Similarly, on the photographs, the long quotations (ps. 12-13, 15) call for follow-up analysis or critiques.

[Thank you for your comments. We have revised some of Faber’s quotations to include critical and analytical references.]

Further suggestions:

• p. 1. Literature review of the study on church architecture in China is a bit thin. Author may consider including recent works done by architectural historians, e.g. Sweeten, Alan Richard.China's Old Churches: The History, Architecture, and Legacy of Catholic Sacred Structures in Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei Province. Netherlands: Brill, 2019.

[Thank you for your recommendation. We have added more articles and books to the references, including Sweeten’s work.]

• p. 1-2. The note on “Reichel’s integration of Buddhism and alienation of Confucianism” (line 84) is interesting. Why did he take a different strategy from Ricci? Why does the paper select Reichel and what is special about this figure? Is it due to the lack of existing scholarship on him and his work? Does this paper offer new insight into existing issues or does it raise new questions?

[Thank you for your question. Actually, in the beginning, Ricci also dressed in monk's clothing and learned about Buddhist culture. Before long, he discovered that the Chinese authorities had no respect for Buddhist monks, he turned to Confucianism to align with the social norms of the time, allowing him to interact with more high-ranking scholars and officials, which was more advantageous for his mission. Reichelt's affinity with Buddhism dates back to his early days in China when in 1905, he visited Weishan Si in Hunan, the birthplace of the Weiyang School, one of the five major schools of Southern Chan Buddhism in China. He was deeply moved by the monks’ devotion and profoundly influenced by Buddhism. He resolved to spread Christianity among Buddhists, actively studying Buddhist scriptures, engaging in exchanges with Buddhists in monasteries, and writing about Chinese Buddhism.

However, since the first storyline has been removed from this manuscript, Ricci’s story will not be elaborated upon in this revised version.]

 

 

 

• p. 2-3. Why were the Tao Fong Shan and Longchang Si selected to be the case study? Where is the Longchang Si? The “anthropological field research” (line 115) remains vague in definition.

[Thank you for your suggestion.

“Longchang Si is located on Baohua Mountain in Jiangsu Province, China. The monastery was originally found in the first year (A.D. 502) of Liang Dynasty. Then after that until 1931, its name was Hui Chu Ssu while now it is called Longchang Si. It was famous for its rigorous practice and Vinaya tradition. “The monastic architecture is testimony to the constant restorative practices” (Zhou 2022, p.2) , which is why it represents a special and unconventional layout. “The flexibility of the layout can be fully adapted to the terrain environment, time changes and religious activities need” (Wang 2017, p.51). The particular focus on Longchang Si stems from several reasons. Firstly, its circular layout, resembling a lotus flower, sets it apart from traditional Buddhist monastic layouts that typically emphasize axial symmetry. Secondly, architectural features such as the mountain gate and path, Hui-style residential horse-head walls, and the secluded yet tranquil space of the ordination hall deeply impressed Prip-Møller. Thirdly, as the foremost monastery of the Vinaya tradition, Longchang Si’s comprehensive ordination ceremonies and the strict daily routines of its monks provided Prip-Møller with an opportunity for close observation of the interaction between monastic space and life. Consequently, within the constraints of limited research time, Prip-Møller meticulously surveyed the monastery’s site selection and mountain paths, layouts, and the plans, elevations, and sections of various architectural spaces, while also capturing extensive architectural photographs and documenting detailed aspects of the monks’ daily lives therein.”]

• p. 3-11. Interesting to read, very informative. Lacking visual analysis to validate claims such as “exaggerated” and “misunderstanding.” Omit details or drop entirely to achieve a greater focus on the case study in the second part.

[Thank you for your suggestion, this part has been removed.]

• p. 13. Figure 12. Very interesting shot. Roof uses the chuandou truss in the south. Doesn’t seem Buddhist but still a church—does this alter or support the author’s argument? Note: many images in the paper lack proper citation/source and credit information.

[Thank you for your suggestion, this part has been removed.]

• p. 13, lines 487-493. The Orientalist sentiments are palpable from the quote. It is probably more than just the Western ignorance or admiration but the exoticization of China.

[Thank you for your suggestion, this part has been removed.]

• p. 18. The names enumerated here are scholars rather than Christian missionaries. They do not render direct support to the author’s claim of how “Christianity… drew inspiration from Buddhist architecture” (p. 19, lines 608-609). Similarly, the list of Japanese scholars (p. 19) do not seem relevant.

[Thank you for your suggestion, this part has been removed.]

• p. 20. Biography of Prip-Moller was helpful. His “anthropological methods” remain vague to me (lines 659, 690).

[Thank you for your suggestion. The anthropological methods adopted by Prip-Møller has been added, especially the reasons why he focused on Longchang Si has been analyzed.

“The particular focus on Longchang Si stems from several reasons. Firstly, its circular layout, resembling a lotus flower, sets it apart from traditional Buddhist monastic layouts that typically emphasize axial symmetry. Secondly, architectural features such as the mountain gate and path, Hui-style residential horse-head walls, and the secluded yet tranquil space of the ordination hall deeply impressed Prip-Møller. Thirdly, as the foremost monastery of the Vinaya tradition, Longchang Si’s comprehensive ordination ceremonies and the strict daily routines of its monks provided Prip-Møller with an opportunity for close observation of the interaction between monastic space and life. Consequently, within the constraints of limited research time, Prip-Møller meticulously surveyed the monastery’s site selection and mountain paths, layouts, and the plans, elevations, and sections of various architectural spaces, while also capturing extensive architectural photographs and documenting detailed aspects of the monks’ daily lives therein.

It is worth mentioning that it was during this period he had been conceptualizing and drawing the design plans for Tao Fong Shan. The reason Tao Fong Shan is high-lighted is because it represents a new pinnacle in the transformation of Buddhist monastery architecture from research to practice. This is the first, and quite possibly the only, Christian monastery specifically catering to Buddhists. The unique approach to missionary work and construction methods can be traced back to the founder of the monastery, Reichelt.”]

• p. 21, line 729. What visual qualities make this a “conventional layout”?

[Thank you for your comments. The features of a “conventional layout” have been added, “Reichelt nearly presented a conventional layout of a Buddhist monastery (Figure 27). It features a central axis symmetry as its main characteristic, with the main hall placed at the center and side rooms on both sides.”]

• p. 22, lines 743. Mentions about fengshui was exciting but remains inadequately explained. Fengshui was not exclusively Buddhist.

[Thank you for your comments. The explanation of Fengshui has been added, “He began seeking inspiration on the site, “listening to the earth”, and learned to apply the principles of feng shui, traditional Chinese architectural art. The so-called Fengshui, from the perspective of Prip-Møller, “This factor is almost universally taken into account although it does not form a part of the Buddhist teaching. Its recognized principles when ap-plied in different localities will produce the most different results and therefore have their share in the irregularities of the monastery layouts.” (Prip-Møller 1937, p.3) Prip-Møller was well-versed in feng shui, which might sound mystical but is actually a way to make site-specific decisions. By understanding the terrain, one could “secure the good and avoid the evil influences which animate his building sites or graveyards or in general surround him when he carries out the more or less important functions of everyday life.” (Prip-Møller 1937, p.3)”]

• p. 22, Figure 29. One has to note that the design drawing utilized modern drawing skills and standards that were learned from the Western architectural design industry, not from the Buddhists. I was curious who the clients of the Tao Fong Shan were. How were the church used back then? How is it used and by what communities now? How was Christian liturgy—which differed from that of Buddhism—served by the Buddhist-inspired spatial design?

[The Tao Fong Shan Christian Center was established by its founder Reichelt, who purchased the land at the end of 1929. The construction took place between 1931 and 1938. Since its establishment, Tao Fong Shan has consistently received support from its im-portant partner, Areopagos. Areopagos is a Christian organization based in Norway and Denmark, dedicated to Christian spirituality, interfaith and intercultural dialogue, and religious practice (Tao Fong Shan Christian Center Website). The purpose of this center was to attract Buddhist and Taoist monks for spiritual practice. From the very beginning, Reichelt and his friend, the architect Prip-Møller, aimed to replicate a Buddhist monastery as closely as possible, creating a Sinicized environment that would be familiar and easily adaptable for Chinese converts. At that time, the facilities included Yun Shui Tang for hosting monks, the missionaries’ dormitories Lian De Lou and Xiang De Lou, the Chapel as prayer hall and Lian Hua Cave, the building of the religious research institute for teaching, and a conference hall for receiving visitors. Today, Tao Fong Shan serves multiple functions, including evange-lism, spiritual practice for pilgrims, interfaith dialogue, training religious talents, and providing a scenic spot for tourists. Specifically, the idea of religious integration-in other words, how the Christian Center learns from Buddhis monasteries- is reflected in the site selection, layout, and specific spatial design of Tao Fong Shan.]

• p. 23, lines 787-788. Interesting note on the Buddhist and Christian sacred mountains. Any further information? How exactly is the symbolism embodied by the octagonal chapel?

[Thanks for your suggestion. About the Chapel, analysis has been added as follow:

“This is reflected in the layout and architectural forms, such as the octagonal chapel, which embodies Reichelt’s attention to numbers, symbolizing the four Buddhist sacred mountains and four Christian sacred mountains (Madsen 2003, p. 164).”

“The Chapel with a double-eaved octagonal pointed roof architectural form and the borrowing of traditional architectural colors are actually related to Prip-Møller’s early work experience in Mukden. Based on his research on Longchang Si, Prip-Møller realized that the courtyard is a worship space and is not confined solely to the halls. The axial order remains very apparent. The Chapel at Tao Fong Shan is a sacred container that defines the sanctuary, and the spacious, rectangular courtyard in front of it echoes the nave of a church while also fitting the daily worship practices of the monks. In terms of exterior design, the red columns and short transverse beams (referred to as “sparrows” in Chinese architecture, which are placed at the intersection of the cross-beams and vertical columns of the building) form a cross, implying the Christian faith through these details, despite the outward appearance resembling traditional Chinese architecture.”]

• p. 25. Photos of the site in nowadays are interesting. Mukden Palace (line 819) is not a Buddhist structure.

[Thanks for your comments. It is true that Mukden Palace is not a Buddhist structure. It could be referred has to do with the early work experience of Prip-Møller.

 “In terms of spatial color perception, traditional Chinese architectural colors of white walls, black roofs, and red paint are adopted (Figure 38), a color scheme also observable in Mukden Palace (Figure 39). This octagonal pavilion architectural form and the borrowing of traditional architectural colors are actually related to Prip-Møller’s early work experience in Mukden.”]

• p. 26, line 826-827. “narrow gate symbolizes the strict monastic rules”—seems like a hasty conclusion. The design of axes, footpaths, and spatial sequences in an architectural layout serves different functions and meanings. More explanation needed for the triple gem table and pillars with couplets (line 831).

[Thanks for your suggestions. In this regard, We did some additional analysis.

“The single-person passage through the Life Gate (Figure 42) evokes the Main Gate of Longchang Si (Figure 43). After the curving mountain route, the Main Gate of Long-chang Si is the only entrance for one who wish to enter the monastery and worship Buddha. Although there is no height difference between the inside and outside of the Main Gate, a group of steps serves as a dedicated path and the narrow gate around 1 meters wide, guiding visitors to pass through the gate slowly and quietly. Due to the strict discipline of the Vinaya tradition in Longchang Si, monks are not allowed to enter or leave the monastery freely. Therefore, the narrow gate symbolizes the rigorous monastic rules. Additionally, it signifies that the journey to discover the true meaning of life is neither smooth nor broad. Similar parallels can be drawn with Tao Fong Shan. At the end of the long staircase that forms the narrow path, there is a gate called the “Gate of Life（生命门）”with the couplet “The broad road is full of people but lacks true joy, while the narrow gate has few entrants but holds eternal life(宽路行人多并无真乐，窄门进者少内有永生).” In both monasteries, the design of routes, gates and their rela-tion to human scale influences the physical and mental experience of pilgrims.”

“Inside the Chapel, commonly used Buddhist furniture like the triple gem table and decorated pillars with couplets (Figure 46) can be observed, similar to the interior space decoration in the Main Hall of Longchang Si (Figure 47). Although there are differences in specific rituals, such as the use of prayer mats for kneeling during morning and evening prayers in Buddhist monasteries, and chairs placed in churches for the congregation to listen to the pastor’s sermons.”]

• p. 27, Figure 44. Interesting shots. Masonry domes are atypical to Chinese Buddhist halls. Could be a Christian/Western influence?

[Thanks for your comments. It is really interesting how the Beamless Hall represents the fusion between East and West. We have added this part “It is worth noting that in 1929, Prip-Møller conducted research on the Beamless Hall of Linggu Si and speculated that the hall was built during the Yuan Dynasty. Due to the rule of the Mongol Empire, cultural exchanges between the East and West increased, and the brick vault structure might have been influenced by Christian missionaries ac-tive in Nanjing at the time (Prip-Møller 1935). Regarding its construction time, Bai (2023) holds a different view. Based on newly discovered historical materials, includ-ing images of Linggu Si drawn during the Yongle period of the Ming Dynasty, records of Buddhist reforms and erection of royal monastery by Hongwu Emperor, she in-ferred that the hall was built between the 14th and 15th years of the Hongwu reign in the Ming Dynasty. However, there is no relevant research on whether the Beamless Hall of Longchang Si was modeled after the Beamless Hall of Linggu Si. If Prip-Møller’s analysis is followed, the Beamless Hall of Linggu Si in Nanjing was influenced by the French Hall Church style. Then he applies his references to the Beam-less Hall of Longchang Si in Tao Fong Shan, which indeed exemplifies the mul-ti-layered cultural fusion between the East and the West.”]

Thank you.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulation, the shift in story line makes sense. However, there are some more observations:

The paper names two persons (Prip-Molle, Reichelt) and two building complexes (Longchang Si, Tao Fong Shan Christian Centre) in its title and mentions a third relationship in the text (The spatial understanding and use of Christian and Buddhist places). While it is comprensible that there is a focus on certain persons and places, the paper should at least introduce the other elemens sind they are fundamental to the text:

Prip-Moller is ok but Reichelt remains flat. Similarly, the information about Longchang Si does not explain its role as example. There are many Buddhist places in China. Did Longchang Si become the model for Tao Fong Shan Christian Centre because Prip-Moller knew it incidentially or becaus it is the model place for a certain type of Buddhism or ... ? In addition, the paper repeatedly refers to the similarities between Christian and Buddhist practice and hints at similar use of spaces but it does not explain this.

Please check the lines 100 to 150, there the narration is partially confused, and check 180 to 190: Boerschmann 1982 (post mortem) is not in the references, Ogawa misses the first name and biographical data... there is more of this in the text.

From the point of architectural history, the use of Mukden Palace as a reference needs legitimation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The interaction of the text with quotes does not work in a number of cases.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulation, the shift in story line makes sense. However, there are some more observations:

The paper names two persons (Prip-Molle, Reichelt) and two building complexes (Longchang Si, Tao Fong Shan Christian Centre) in its title and mentions a third relationship in the text (The spatial understanding and use of Christian and Buddhist places). While it is comprensible that there is a focus on certain persons and places, the paper should at least introduce the other elemens sind they are fundamental to the text:

Prip-Moller is ok but Reichelt remains flat. Similarly, the information about Longchang Si does not explain its role as example. There are many Buddhist places in China. Did Longchang Si become the model for Tao Fong Shan Christian Centre because Prip-Moller knew it incidentially or becaus it is the model place for a certain type of Buddhism or ... ? In addition, the paper repeatedly refers to the similarities between Christian and Buddhist practice and hints at similar use of spaces but it does not explain this.

Thanks for your suggestions.

The personal experience of Reichelt and why he chose Buddhist monks as the object of missionaries has been added:

Reichelt was born in 1877 into a modest rural family on the southern coast of Norway. The early death of his father and the hard labor of his mother instilled in him a strong sense of guilt. The surrounding natural environment inspired his love for contempla-tion and mysticism from a young age. He grew up in a devout Lutheran religious at-mosphere and received a broad Christian humanist education (Xu 2014).

At the same time, he dissatisfied with their lack of spiritual pursuit, which he perceived as mere superficial superstition, such as idol worship. Reichelt considered Buddhists to be “other sheep” outside the Christian fold, believing that monks still belonged to and loved the truth. He felt it was his duty to bring these “other sheep” into the Christian fold.

Reichelt chose Buddhists as the target of his missionary work, incorporating ele-ments that some European mission societies criticized as “syncretism”. However, within the seemingly Buddhist context, the religious architecture, rituals, language, and ideas were distinctly Christianized. He sought to achieve this primarily through three points of contact: 1) Architecture: Interpreting Christianity using the style of Chinese monastic architecture. 2) Rituals: Ex-pressing Christianity through Buddhist rituals, including eleven worship ceremonies and three sacraments. 3) Language: Conveying Christian concepts using Buddhist terminology (Li 2006).

Undoubtedly, to undertake such an unconventional mission, Reichelt had to be-come an expert in Buddhism. “He not only affirmed the value of Chinese Buddhism from a doctrinal standpoint but also repeatedly emphasized that there are aspects of Buddhist life that are truly worthy of respect” (Li 2006). He authored the book Kinas religioner: haandbok i den kinesiske religionshistorie (Religions of China: A Handbook of Chinese Religious History) (Reichelt 1913) , and in Religion in Chinese Garment (Reichelt 1951), he introduced the lives of Buddhist monks. Later, in Truth and tradition in Chinese Buddhism; a study of Chinese Mahayana Buddhism (Reichelt and Wagenen Bugge 1927), he provided a more detailed description and discussion of various aspects of Chinese Buddhism. Beyond doctrinal exploration, he delved into religious rituals, monastic architecture, sectarian traditions, pilgrimage activities, and the daily lives of monks. These observations were based on his experiences in Buddhist monasteries and in-cluded the influences of masters such as Taixu(太虚) and Yinguang(印光).

Reichelt’s unique insights and unwavering persistence in missionary work also reflect his multifaceted role as a missionary, scholar, and pilgrim (Sharpe, Shen and Yang 2021).

 

The importance of Longchang Si has been added:

As the most famous mountain of Vinaya school, Longchang Si is the most influential ordination site since Ming and Qing dynasties. The ordination rituals of monasteries in various places are based on the “Ordination Standards” of Longchang Si in Baohua Mountain. In the early years of the Republic of China, it still retained relatively complete architectural layout, self-sufficient monastic life and rigorous religious rituals, so it is not surprising that Prip-Møller was interested in Longchang Si.

Please check the lines 100 to 150, there the narration is partially confused, and check 180 to 190: Boerschmann 1982 (post mortem) is not in the references, Ogawa misses the first name and biographical data... there is more of this in the text.

Thanks for pointing out this confusion.

These paragraphs have been revised to strengthen the logic and the coherency.

The missing reference has been added:

(Boerschmann 1982) Boerschmann, Ernst. 1982. Old China in Historic Photographs. New York: Dover Publications.

Ogawa has been revised to Daijō Tokiwa (1870-1945).

From the point of architectural history, the use of Mukden Palace as a reference needs legitimation.

Thanks for your suggestions.

In terms of spatial color perception, traditional Chinese architectural colors of white walls, black roofs, and red paint are adopted (Figure 38), a color scheme also observable in Mukden Palace (Figure 39). The Chapel with a double-eaved octagonal pointed roof architectural form and the borrowing of traditional architectural colors are actually related to Prip-Møller’s early work experience in Mukden. The Mukden Palace was the imperial palace of the Qing Dynasty before they moved their capital to Beijing, initially constructed in 1625. The Dazheng Hall, also known as the Octagonal Hall, was the place where the emperor discussed state affairs and held major ceremonies. Chinese emperors claimed to be divinely appointed, hence the title “Son of Heaven(天子)”. By adopting the architectural form of the Octagonal Hall, Tao Fong Shan subtly implies that Jesus is God (Heaven).

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The interaction of the text with quotes does not work in a number of cases.

Thanks for your suggestions, the quotes have been checked.