The Early Manuscripts of San Salvatore de Lingua in Messina (Mid-12th Century): Surveying the Chief Decorator

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Line 134: paintersa > painters

Line 182: thei > them

Line 251: connected > maybe ‘connected to?’

Line 292: the cathedral use > is the typikon of the Great Church at C/ple meant here – or somewhat else? Can it be specified?

Line 302: ‘Symeone’: Is this exactly the form adopted by BMFD? If so ok, but I would prefer ‘Symeon’.

Line 314: Instead of ‘Iohannes’, if not otherwise required, one could use ‘John’, which is less Germanising/Latinising… other characters with widespread first names are called ‘Gregory’, ‘Luke’, etc. through the paper… Of course, this is but a suggestion.

Line 348: trandition > tradition

Line 394: enkainiai > I would suggest enkainia. I do not know of the existence of a plural feminine variant.

Author Response

This review was very useful to correct and specify a few terms within the text.

Reviewer 2 Report

I found this article truly interesting. What's more, this paper is very well composed and written. Its structure is clear and logical. The same is with the topic, which is definite and precise. The list of analyzed objects and the literature concerning them is compelling and appropriately chosen. I also like the fact that the author outlined the wide historical and cultural background of the functioning of the monastery of the Holy Salvator. But what is most important: the argumentation is strong and convincing. The main thesis is really well-proven. Good work.

Author Response

These comments have turned useful to sharpen the article's argument during the post-review editing process.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article makes a useful contribution to scholarship on Greek manuscripts from medieval southern Italy. The subject matter is interesting and the author has engaged quite thoroughly with the manuscripts in question. The broad argument is quite persuasive and the method of focusing on material and production evidence, rather than just stylistic similarity, is sound. The article yields useful observations and conclusions about the workflow patterns of copying and decoration in the scriptorium of San Salvatore of Messina. It provides a useful assortment of figures to provide points of visual reference and cites a sufficient body of scholarship, given the length of the article.

There are two main areas for improvement, in my view: the English writing style and the structure of the article. To begin with English writing style, I must say that I found the article quite hard to read. To be clear, this is not intended as a personal criticism of the author, who is obviously not a native English speaker; I understand that writing in a foreign language is not an easy task. The author is to be commended for the effort that they clearly put into writing in English.

Having said that, it was sometimes quite difficult for me to follow the author's meaning. There are many minor mistakes of grammar and orthography; for example, the adjective 'Byzantine' (which should be capitalised in English) consistently appears as 'byzantine' (uncapitalised, as in the style of other European languages). On p. 4, the author states that 'In this section, the outcome of an extensive analysis will be exposed'; a simpler and clearer way to write this would be: 'This section will show the results of an extensive analysis.' The same sentence runs on for the rest of the paragraph, made up of no fewer than six sub-clauses and two parenthetical clauses. While this is common in (e.g.) Italian or French academic writing, English speakers usually prefer shorter sentences.

Again, in the second paragraph of p. 5: 'It might have been landing to Messina because of the multiple connection between the Straits and the Outremer territories over the course of the Central Middle Ages.' I had to re-read this a couple of times before I could understand the meaning. A better way to phrase this would be: 'It might have come to Messina via the many connections between the Straits and the lands of Outremer in the central Middle Ages.'

These are admittedly minor points. However, they add up over the course of the article, making it relatively hard to read. If possible, my advice would be to show the article to a native English speaker and ask them to check the style.

Moving on to structure, the article seems to have four main parts (to judge by the numbering). However, I could not find part three. Is 'A Note on Contents' (p. 11) supposed to be part 3? If so, it is not identified as such in the text. Apart from this, I find the parts rather unbalanced. Part 1 ('Introduction') runs from page 1 to 3, before suddenly transitioning to Part 2 ('Results and Discussion'). I find this transition quite odd, as the author has not yet described the source materials or methods; as the reader, we are suddenly presented with the 'results' of an analysis that we have not yet read about. Before moving on to 'Results and Discussion', the author should include another section that at least introduces the main manuscripts and the method of research.

Part 2 ('Results and Discussion') takes up the majority of the article (pages 4 to 10), though it is subdivided into shorter sections. It took me some time to find the conclusion paragraph, which is sandwiched inconspicuously between three diagrams on page 10. Perhaps the author could consider creating a separate section just for the conclusion?

Part 3 ('A Note on Contents', I assume) takes up pages 11 to 14 and gives information on the contents of several manuscripts as well as observations on some of their decorations. I feel that this section would make more sense coming before the 'Results and Discussion', as it provides related information that would make the sequence of discussion easier to follow. Part 4 ('Addendum') seems reasonable in its current location, as it mainly provides supplementary information about one manuscript.

These criticisms (of style and structure) can be addressed through some re-drafting and re-writing; they do not require any serious changes to the substance and content of the article. The main area for improvement, besides re-writing in a more natural English style, should be the sequencing of information. Before the author proceeds to tell the reader about the results of the research, he or she should first tell the reader what precisely was researched and how. One other minor comment is that the author might like to cite more studies in English; for instance, the introduction prominently discusses the Madrid Skylitzes manuscript, but I was surprised to see no mention of Elena Boeck's 2015 monograph on the subject.

Nonetheless, once these concerns are addressed, I am sure that this would be a useful article and a very positive contribution to the study of medieval Italo-Greek manuscripts.

Author Response

This was very useful to clarify several points within the article, as regards language issues and the content. All the suggestions have been considered during the post-review editing process.