Religious Publishing in 17th-Century Geneva
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsVery well researched and written paper. One thing that would strengthen the paper would be to provide more examples from the sources--there is a sense of the author "telling" us the narrative rather than "showing" us how the narrative is supported by the sources and unfolds from them. Such work does not need to be extensive, but, perhaps in four or five places throughout the paper, the author could give a fuller sense of what is actually said in the sources that supports the argument of the paper. A few examples of places I would have been interested to hear more of the actual details from original sources include: the paragraph starting at line 237 (I'd like to see examples of revisions/corrections by pastors and professors); paragraph starting at 361 (who are some of the foreign theologians and what do they say that supports the notion of symbolic importance?); starting with lines 407 and 414, these paragraphs illustrate the beacon/light/sun metaphor, but what we have are two examples of what is presented as a widespread idea--is there something beyond these two examples that speak to the scope of metaphor's use outside Geneva? This type of additional work would add heft to the author's argument in terms of how that argument seems to be supported.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the review, and for the suggested enhancement to provide more examples from the source.
About the suggestion in the paragraph starting line 237, I have clarified that I'm not giving specific examples because I refer to Jostock's book rather than the sources themselves:
"The Company was above all responsible for the publication of essential works for the Reformed faith and worship, such as Bibles, catechisms and Psalms. Secondly, foreign authors – mostly Reformed theologians – addressed the Company seeking its theological expertise, editorial competencies, and technical facilities. Indeed, the Company was able to assess the doctrine of the manuscripts it received, exerting influence on Reformed publishing as a whole. Its advice could impact the content of the books, sometimes even leading to the banning of a publication deemed insufficient or bad. If considered good and fruitful enough to “see the light”, some texts could be revised and corrected by the Pastors and Professors. Jostock provides examples of authors from France, Swiss Confederacy, Imperial lands or United-Provinces seeking the Company’s advice and receiving its corrections. The Company could also act as publisher or agent between the authors and local printers, promoting the works of its own members or the manuscripts it had received. Jostock entitles her chapter “the stamp of orthodoxy”. The expertise of the Company – and most importantly – the fact that this expertise was recognized and sought after conferred it a status of authority in matters regarding the printing and publishing of religious books. This recognition and authority was a direct legacy of the leading status of Calvin’s and de Bèze’s Geneva from the previous century. As the repository of the legacy of the great Reformers, the Company, the very same institution they had created and directed for years, was the guardian of orthodoxy."
The paragraph starting line 363 is intended as a transition between the sections 3 and 4: I have carified that the examples of what I write here are to be found in the following lines:
"Up until that point, jurisdictional liberty, practical facilities, as well as theological and scholarly expertise were some of the reasons why foreign theologians adressed the Company to publish their works in Geneva. In addition, the symbolic importance of publishing Reformed books in Geneva was no less appealing to those who wrote to the Company, as is stressed the following pages. The implicit approval of the church resulting from the censorship process and the practical participation of the Company were actively sought. Such validation from a recognized authority arose from – and contributed to – Geneva’s reputation of preeminence within the Reformation."
About the beacon-sun-light metaphor, I have added a few lines to emphasize the scope of the symbolics: the very device and coat of arms of Geneva bears it since the years 1530-40. I have also added a reference to these questions:
"The religious biblical representation of Geneva as a source of light was by no mean original, but its revival in the middle of the 17th century indicated the permanence of a status acquired a hundred years earlier. As Drelincourt himself recalled, [note with reference to the passage] the former device of the city, post tenebras spero lucem (Job, 17:12) was changed after the Reformation in the late 1530s, becoming Post tenebras lux. The emblem of the sun surmounting the city’s coat of arms and the new device was, since then, showing the light of the Reformation and visually depicting the metaphor of Geneva as a source of light, in a well-known and widespread symbolic (Deonna 1946). Furthermore, Drelincourt was not the only one using this kind of metaphor for a book produced in the city, which in his case, was a quite short and accessible controversy book aimed at a large public. One other example is particularly significant for the mixture of this depiction of Geneva as a beacon with another image extremely widespread."
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI do not have any significant suggestion to improve the present essay. It is very well structured and the argument is clear. The essay explores an important topic for Reformation studies (the image of Geneva for the Reformed world in the seventeenth-century) and this is clearly declared in the Introduction, in which the author also states the objectives of the study. The author shows good knowledge of the relevant historiography and carefully develops the essay argument while discussing previous findings (sections 2 and 3). Sections 4 then reaches the objectives described in the Introduction. So, I have nothing to say concerning the essay argument and structure.
The only minor suggestion I have is to clarify which 'both confessions' were involved in the controversy described at p. 6: from the context I believe this is a controversy between Huguenots and Catholic, but the author speaks of the controversy between Remonstrants and Contra-remonstrants in the previous lines, so it might be useful to state more clearly what the author means when writing 'both confessions'.
The only suggestions I have are related to the English prose. While I am not a native speaker and while overall the essay is very well written, I recommend that a native speaker should double check the essay. I have spotted some repetitions (for example, at p. 1 the word 'period' is repeated twice in a few lines) and some strange wording (for example, at p. 8 the author uses the word 'issues' when I believe it is meant 'editions').
Author Response
Thank you very much for the review!
I have clarified the issue regarding, indeed, the Catholic-Protestant controversies of the Seventeenth-century:
"Secondly, the sources reveal an multiplication of the discussions on printed confessional controversies from the 1620s onward. Studies of the Catholic-Protestant controversy during the coexistence resulting from the Edict of Nantes (Dompnier 1985, 2002; Solé 1997; Kappler and Christin 2011) emphasize the proliferation of books during the first three decades, as shown by Louis Desgraves’ bibliographical study (1984-5). The general narrative sees the pursuit of the wars of religion in the field of printed publication, where champions of both confessional sides clashed through their books. [...]"
I have suppressed the repetition of "period" in the first page, and clarified the meaning of issue/edition:
"This second image is to be found in a thick book of theology written by the Geneva pastor Jean Gros and published in the city in 1642 (re-issued with new title pages in 1661 and 1663). It was an exegesis of the Book of Revelation. [...]"
The paper has already been reviewed and corrected by a native English speaker... As long as the text is sufficiently understandable and with a correct prose, I fear that the remaining stylistic weaknesses should be kept under my responsibility.
