Seamen’s Guilds, Labor Organizations and Social Protest in Northern Iberia in the Late Middle Ages
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSEAMEN’S GUILDS, LABOR ORGANISATION AND SO-2 CIAL PROTEST IN NORTHERN IBERIA IN THE LATE MID-3 DLE AGES
It is a well-structured, well-developed piece of work with clear conclusions.
The value of the contribution is based on the presentation of the maritime brotherhoods as axes of not only social but also economic and religious links. The historiographical introduction is pertinent and situates the reader very well before the question addressed in the article. Townports of Northern Iberia in the Late Middle Ages, which helps to understand geographically the location of the different confraternities in their places.
Two questions suggest themselves:
1) In the "Keywords" change "6. Social protest" to "6. Social representation" or "Linkages and social representation".
2) It would be convenient to separate in the Bibliography the studies of the documentary sources in order to highlight the publications related to the statutes of the maritime guilds.
Finally, two comments.
3) In lines 247 and 248 the handwriting of the work changes in the reference: (Archivo de la Real Audiencia y Chancillería 247 de Valladolid, Reales Ejecutorias, 211/6).
4) In the Conclusions the expression the común (line 684) appears, which I believe should be in italics or in inverted commas.
Author Response
I am so grateful to the reviewr for his/her work and contributions that improve the final version of my article. I have responded to the comments in the own text of his/her review and everything added and revised has been included in red in the article.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSeamen’s Guilds: external review.
This article is a solid and helpful, albeit largely descriptive, contribution to our knowledge of the role of guilds in maritime northern Iberia in the late Middle Ages. The author has an exceptional command of the source material, and a good understanding of the European historiography of guilds. However, I would like to see more original and incisive conclusions; the conclusion (as
stated in the abstract) that “guilds were constituted as networks of mutual help” is in fact less of an analytical ‘conclusion’ than a basic background fact. The author generally needs to be careful to avoid statements of the obvious -- e.g. the unsurprising observation sailors were “in charge of sailing their vessels” (5) – and instead should emphasize what is new and original.
Relatedly, I would also like to see more clarity in the description of the nebulous “important debates” mentioned in the abstract, and in the author’s self-positioning in relation to these debates. The survey of these debates on page 2 is rather perfunctory and unsatisfactory. Similarly on page 13, the reference to a “controversy since the mid-19th century, between those who
defended the guilds’ political role in urban political life and those who regarded them as an obstacle to the consolidation of monarchic authority” is brief and unclear. What does it mean to “defend their role”? Is the debate really between those who think they are a good idea and those who think they are a bad idea? Is this debate really ongoing?
Specific comments:
Page 1: cut the reference to the “fragile human condition”, which is too abstract to be useful.
1: generate generated
1: the author is at pains to indicate what guilds are called in the dominant national languages of each country, including “Spanish” (castellano) but what about Basque and Galician, the spoken languages of many of the subjects of this article?
2: “Late Middle Ages”. The author has just specified the twelfth century as the moment of origin; this is not late medieval.
2: “the attitude of the English crown” – what attitude?
2: “certain prejudices about the medieval guilds” – what prejudices?
2: Stabel 2004: why is only one reference provided here?
3: Thesis thesis (lower case)
3: “Kingdom of Medieval Castile” “medieval Kingdom of Castile and León”.
3: “so-called ‘people of the sea’” – who calls them this?
3: “over thre and five hundred years” – misspelling of “three”, and at what stage would this have been true? Fifteenth century?
3: “16th and 17th – surely these and equivalent terms should be spelled out: “sixteenth”, “seventeenth”, etc.
4: Map gives all place names in Spanish, whereas the official place name of “La Coruña” is in fact “A Coruña”, “Noya” should be “Noia”, Bayona is “Baiona”, “Guardia” is “A Guarda”, etc. Also “Townports” is not a word in English. Cf. “Noya” on page 13.
5: quiñónes and quintaladas: Spanish terms should presumably be italicized, and translated into English on the first occurrence; furthermore, English terms should be explained when highly specialized. See, for instance, pages 8 and 11: “quiñón or mareage”. Mareage may be the correct English term, but it is not familiar to this reader. On page 10, this reader is unfamiliar with “pinnaces” – worth an explanation.
7: “attorney generals” – is this really the correct term?
7: “maiden and women” mixes one singular term with a plural term.
7: unnecessary space between “mayor” and comma.
8: “was said “This Town Council and the Guild” – fix the grammar.
9: “treat one another with respect “no guild…” – missing colon.
10: “jito or geito”. Italicize and translate?
11: “mío sea”: ??
12: the common’s voice “the commons’ voice”.
14: “centralising” is UK English, as is “labour” in the abstract. These should presumably be replaced by the US spellings which are otherwise dominant.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Generally good translation, but requires some polishing and correction as per the attached file.
Author Response
I am so grateful to the reviewr for his/her work and contributions that improve the final version of my article. I have responded to the comments in the own text of his/her review and everything added and revised have been included in red in the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
