Building Episcopal Authority in Medieval Castile: The Bishops of the Diocese of Burgos (11th–13th Centuries)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article includes sound research, but problems with the English prose and with its organization hold it back from achieving its full potential. The organizational issues relate particularly to section 3, which is ostensibly about Bishop Maurice. However, Maurice is not mentioned at all in the first sub-section and only barely in the third sub-section. The author should rework the entire section to focus on Maurice’s accomplishments. Section 3.3 serves little purpose (it’s only one paragraph, most of which consists of references to points made earlier) and should perhaps be eliminated and/or folded into other sections.

Beyond this necessary reworking of section 3, the author should reread the entire article carefully for grammatical awkwardness, along with punctuation and spelling errors. The frequent awkward phrasing gets in the way of the author’s analysis.

Here are a few specific comments:

P.1: “total social fact”—very vague expression

P.2: “three phases that have been identified”—identified by whom? The verb tense here is confusing.

P.3: The information about monasteries at the top of the page should have its own paragraph.

P.3: “and causes confusions”—rework this phrase

P.3: “He was also named Bishop of Burgos in 1036, the first time that that had happened.” This sentence is vague—does this mean the bishopric of Burgos was established in 1036, or that this particular individual was named bishop for the first time?

P.3: Rework the sentence beginning “His episcopate and succession . . .”

P.5 (second full paragraph): Change “observance” to “observing” to maintain parallel structure in the list.

P.5 (last paragraph): “acted as a point of reference for the others” Who or what are the others? This is ambiguous.

P.5 (last paragraph): The sentence beginning with “A decade later . . .” needs to be reworked grammatically.

P.6 (last paragraph): Rework the opening sentence of this paragraph—English is very awkward here.

P.7 (bottom few lines): How does a 16th-century inventory allow for a reconstruction of what took place 300 years earlier. This statement needs far more justification.

P.9: possible arbitrariness of the prelate were limited”—rework this phrasing

P.9: This information about Bishop Maurice should be lifted out of the middle of the paragraph and should perhaps come earlier in the section. The heading to section 3 refers to his pivotal reign, but the reader then hears nothing about him for nearly two pages.

P.9 (last paragraph): The prose in the first sentence of this paragraph is very awkward. Rework.

P.10: Section 3.3 lacks purpose. The author refers mostly to points made earlier in other parts of the paper, along with mere speculation. Does this section need to exist, or could discussion about spiritual jurisdiction be folded into other sections?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Again, serious work on the grammar and syntax is necessary before publication.

Author Response

Please check the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author provides a well-researched article upon the increasing episcopal power in Castile from the 11^th to the 13^th century.  He traces three basic stages to the development culminating in the triumph of jurisdictional rights over the clergy, churches, and abbeys during the reign of Bishop Maurice, with the power of the papacy and Lateran Councils lurking behind him. The work relates many historical details of a highly specialized field of scholarship. The Introduction situates the study among recent scholarship upon episcopal authority, creation of dioceses, churches, and monasteries during the period in question. The conclusion follows from the many details related in the study. The writing is good and lucid for the most part, although parenthetical comments and stringing together dependent clauses make some of the sentences awkward. For example,

“The first of these was to delimit . . . centres obtained from their dependent churches.” (p. 4)

“Since Ona was granted a moratorium . . . see until 1218.” (p. 9)

“The example of the church . . . belonged to the village community). (p. 9)

“It was in vain that, . . . pay the abbot of Silos.” (p. 9)

I suggest the author goes back and revisits some of these sentences. It might also help the presentation if the author provides more synthesis for the reader here and there. The writing and conclusions are clear for the most part, but it is possible for the reader to become lost in the details.

I had one particular question that intrigued me while reading the article: What motivated the various actors—the kings, the bishops, the popes, the locals, et al.—beyond just the will to power? What was their justification or rationalization in seizing power over a church or region? This question might be difficult to answer or hard to figure out for sure. It might be highly speculative and beyond the scope of the study, but it is probably of interest to the reader and might warrant some comment. I particularly wanted to know how the kings factored in the ecclesiastical designs. The study only mentions them in passing and hardly develops their role.

Overall, this is an excellent piece of scholarship as it stands but might need to consider a few of these suggestions and respond accordingly.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is scholarly and expressive for the most part. There are some problems that I previously mentioned in the Comments and Suggestions for Authors.

Author Response

Please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf