Shouting Catfish and Subjugated Thunder God: A Popular Deity’s Criticism of the Governmental Authority in the Wake of the Ansei Edo Earthquake in Catfish Prints

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

This article describes a number of namazu-e (Catfish Pictures) produced shortly after the Anse Period earthquake in Edo in 1855.  The discussion of specific prints points to many details in them and their role not only in reportage of the events but also in subtly criticizing the government authorities in charge of responding to the disaster.   

The manuscript is clear, well-structured and well written. The description is detailed, the translation and analysis are careful and accurate, and the conclusions are well considered and convincing.   I recommend the publication of this article without further modification, The illustrations are useful and important, the citations accurate and contemporary, and the material important to the field of Japanese art history. 

There were two typographical errors that I spotted, however. In the caption to Figure 1 Gakujit-su  on line 148 should be Gakujitsu .  In the caption to Figure 10 Door on line 496   should be Doors (or possibly “Door Set”)

.

 

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing my manuscript and for your insightful comments. I sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has helped refine and strengthen my work. Below, I provide point-by-point responses to your suggestions.

Figure 1 “Gakujit-su” on line 148 has been corrected to “Gakujutsu” (currently in line 156).  

Figure 10 “Door” on line 496 has been corrected to “Doors (currently in line 504)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Minor refinements in argument structure, referencing, and language clarity would enhance the paper's impact. Integrating more recent academic works would provide a broader historiographical perspective and strengthen its scholarly foundation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is generally strong but has some minor grammatical issues and awkward phrasings. Some sentences could be more concise for clarity.

Author Response

• Minor refinements in argument structure, referencing, and language clarity would enhance the paper's impact. Integrating more recent academic works would provide a broader historiographical perspective and strengthen its scholarly foundation.

Thank you for your feedback. I have reviewed recent academic works, but there are limited references available on this specific topic. I have ensured that the most relevant and up-to-date sources are included. Additionally, I have incorporated key sentences in each chapter to clarify my argument structure and enhance readability (highlighted in blue)

• The English is generally strong but has some minor grammatical issues and awkward phrasings. Some sentences could be more concise for clarity.

I have addressed the grammatical issues and awkward phrasing noted by the other reviewer and have made some sentences, particularly in the introduction, more concise for clarity (highlighted in yellow). Please let me know if any additional refinements are required.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1: On lines 35-40, you introduce the catfish themed art, however, I am unclear on the history of such.  What historical period was this form of artwork born out from, and in what context?

 

Point 2: There is an unnecessary space between “Edo” and “as” on line 90.

 

Point 3: On line 126, “The over 300 years…” reads awkwardly; try restating differently, such as the “The  300+ years rule…”

 

Point 4: Change has >> have in line 426.

 

Point 5: Why the larger font and bold print on line 608 “from the upper right”?

 

Point 6: This article is informative and “eye opening.” I appreciate the interpretation of the catfish and the thunder god in the context of social changes which were attuned by a natural disaster.  Your reader walks away from this article well informed with a convincing interpretation. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

One walks away from reading this article with an informed "eye opening" perspective.  Aside from minor changes, I support the publication of this article as is.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing my manuscript and for your insightful comments. I sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has helped refine and strengthen my work. Below, I provide point-by-point responses to your suggestions.

Point 1: On lines 35-40, you introduce the catfish themed art, however, I am unclear on the history of such.  What historical period was this form of artwork born out from, and in what context?

A brief explanation of the historical background of the catfish prints has been added (currently in lines 50–57).

Point 2: There is an unnecessary space between “Edo” and “as” on line 90.

The space has been deleted (currently in line 98)

Point 3: On line 126, “The over 300 years…” reads awkwardly; try restating differently, such as the “The  300+ years rule…”

The sentence has been changed into “The Tokugawa shogunate's rule, which spanned over 300 years, came to an end 13 years after the Ansei Edo earthquake”(currently in line134-135).

Point 4: Change has >> have in line 426.

“has” has been corrected into “have” (currently in line 434)

Point 5: Why the larger font and bold print on line 608 “from the upper right”?

The font size has been corrected (currently in lines 617-618)

Point 6: This article is informative and “eye opening.” I appreciate the interpretation of the catfish and the thunder god in the context of social changes which were attuned by a natural disaster.  Your reader walks away from this article well informed with a convincing interpretation. 

Thank you for your favorable comment on my article. I highly appreciate it.