The Active Life and the Contemplative Life in St. John of the Cross: The Mixed Life in the Teresian Carmelite Tradition

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

To note, the claim on lines 195-200, that John is "still characterized by Sanjuanist commentators as an austere mystic" is simply not true. The author does not appear to be aware of scholarship that has taken the opposite view concerning John of the Cross and his writings, re: there has been significant analysis in the literature on John's appreciation of the world and people.  For example, the author would benefit from reading the following works: 

David B. Perrin, For Love of the World:  The Old and New Self of John of the Cross, (Bethesda, MD: International Scholars Publications, 1997).

David B. Perrin, “The New Self of John of the Cross,” Vol. V, No. 1, January 2014, Vinayasādhana: Dharmaram Journal of Psycho-Spiritual Formation, Dharmaram College, Bangalore, India, 31-42. 

David B. Perrin, “Asceticism: The Enigma of Corporal Joy in Paul Ricoeur and John of the Cross,” Pastoral Sciences, 16 (1997), 135-162. 

Richard P. Hardy, Search for Nothing: The Life of St. John of the Cross, New York: Crossroads Publishing, Co., 1982.

The Introduction needs to be divided into two sections: the "Introduction" proper and then a section titled "Historical Analysis."

 

Author Response

Thank you for all your valuable comments! I have clarified any confusion in the introduction of my article and have addressed your concerns, especially on the wording on lines 195-200, which now appears on lines 247-284. I did not mean that all contemporary Sanjuanist commentators portray John only as a strict austere mystic, only those who followed the hagiographers and the literature of the dark night of the soul, a phrase St. John of the Cross never used. For John, dark night is infused contemplation and mystical theology as he defined in his prose commentaries. I am fully aware of the recommended scholarship. In fact, I used both Perrin and Hardy in my article but I cited the other titles mentioned by you in my References. I added two of your recommended sources to my Reference list (see lines 1086 and 1156). Furthermore, I found very helpful your suggestion of dividing the Introduction into two sections. I titled Historical Analysis and the Problem of Conversos in St. John of the Cross (see line 121).

Reviewer 2 Report

I have entered 45 comments in the attached PDF (enable / show comments). These mostly fall in the category of minor suggestions.

Overall, the author presents a clear case for a re-calibration of St John of the Cross's mystical and prophetical profiles in light of his biographical details, his own words, and his historical context.

Occasionally, it would be good to see more explicit references to the superficial tradition that is being rightly contested in this article. The first mention comes relatively late in the study. In other words, for the average learned but not specialised reader, it would be useful to assess the extent of the misconception that is being redressed here.

This could be done in the shape of further referencing, perhaps adding a passage or two by the commentators that miscategorised St John of the Cross as a passive contemplative. None of this affects the credibility of the overall thesis though. If anything, it looks more like a case of respectful discretion afforded to historical (if now superseded by modern scholarship) works by other authors. Nevertheless, I think that adding these references would add further context to the corpus of secondary literature to which this study belongs.

The article utilises relevant passages from primary sources and its secondary literature is commendably up to date. In terms of critical apparatus, I have no further suggestions that would add much of value to what the author has already read.

The overall thesis is presented persuasively. I have sometimes noted a tendency to insist on the main points by accumulation. This is merely a matter of stylistic preference, but I think that excessive repetition of the main thesis can undermine how effective it is. The author presents plenty of evidence to support their claims. They don't need to remind the reader of the purpose of said evidence: the rational chain of arguments is easy to follow from start to finish.

The article is well distributed in terms of contents, and it is enjoyable to read. It exudes enthusiasm and rigor, and it offers a valuable, wider perspective on an author who is often assessed too rigidly (as a poet, as a mystic...) rather than from a broader point of view that takes his circumstances into account. The intellectual and theoretical framework underpinning the article are also appropriate, and mostly based on Mertonian commentary.

Some passages are slightly speculative (on St John's and St Teresa's ancestry, background and relationship with conversos and moriscos, and relationship with the Inquisitors) but this is frankly inevitable given the scarcity of direct biographical evidence to support these notions beyond the intertextual and cultural elements identified in the Asin Palacios / Lopez Baralt tradition, which is appropriately quoted.

This is a good contribution to the field that I am sure will be well received. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your sharing your valuable comments! I have changed my Introduction. I have added comments for clarification in regards to the purpose of this article (see lines 30 and 31), and also have added passages and moved quotes and sources to lines 45 to 120. Now I hope you will find more clarity in my argument by placing the importance of the problematic literature of some Sanjuanist commentators at the beginning of the article instead of waiting to read them later in the article. I really appreciate your recommendations to make my argument stronger. I found them very useful and this why I expanded on it. I have rearranged sections following one of the reviewer's comments so I split the Introduction and open a new section on Historical Analysis and the Problem of Conversos in St. John of the Cross (please see line 121).

Reviewer 3 Report

I read the paper with great interest and find it very well written and well based.

I do find though that the author can improve his/her argument significantly if considering the following points:

A significant point of departure in the author’s argument relates to his emphasis on the Muslim-Jewish background of Joan (and Theresa). He repeatedly suggests that this also related to the theoretical level of his thought (see, for instance, lines 62-3: “This event in John’s life is significant because if it is true, it could prove how close John was to the Muslim world (especially to the Sufi mystical tradition)” ). However, in the end, apart from expressing a “suspicion” that such background might have been the cause for the persecution they both have suffered (see lines 661-5. possibly, but not necessary. The author himself point out some massive interests that probably motivated their persecutors), the author fails to offer any possible connection to Sufi or Jewish mysticism, or Arabic theory and practice of prophecy. This is a pity since such links if exist might enrich the discussion of prophecy as it is now developed in the paper. The prominent main feature of Muslim and Judaeo Arabic Andalusian theories of prophecy lies in the way they combine philosophy, mysticism, and political thought. These elements are mostly absent from the present narrative, concentrated mainly on spirituality and devotion.

The author provides his genuine definition of “prophetic mysticism,” which I find very interesting. But fail to address the way medieval prophets defined themselves and were defined by their surroundings?

A further series of questions might involve the Old Testament as against the New Testament prophecy?

Muslim notion of prophethood? Arab philosophical Platonic-Aristotelian theory of prophecy?

I do not suggest that the paper must include a thorough analysis of all that. Still, I do believe that short references Might be relevant, especially for the understanding of the potential significance of the assumed converso-morisco background.

 

Here’s a complimentary bibliography that might assist with developing those points:

Niels Christian Hvidt, Christian Prophecy. The Post-Biblical Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2007

Howard Kreisel, Prophecy. The History of an Idea in Medieval Jewish Philosophy

Brian Fitzgerald, Inspiration and Authority in the Middle Ages. Prophets and their Critics from Scholasticism and Humanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2017 (Fitzgerald’s introduction also includes a comprehensive and updated survey of scholarly literature on medieval European theories on prophecy and inspiration, see pp. 5-7)

Marjorie Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages: A Study of Joachimism. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1969

I agree regarding the centrality of the figure of Moses  (see lines 271-2, 286-8) but here again many related questions might arise which are partially discussed in: Jane Beal ed., Illuminating Moses: A History of Reception from Exodus to the Renaissance. Leiden: Brill 2013

Author Response

Thank you for all your wonderful recommendations! I just want it to clarify that the purpose of this article was the mixed life in St. John of the Cross, following the Teresian tradition. Although in this article I did treat the problem of conversos, it was not my intention to dwell on it since it is impossible to cover all these different topics in just one article. I have rearranged sections following one of the reviewer's comments so I split the Introduction and open a new section on Historical Analysis and the Problem of Conversos in St. John of the Cross (please see lines 116 to 119). I made a comment on the importance to do more research in this comparative area and to find more direct evidence of the links between John's converso background and the prophetic mystical traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Please see lines 338 to 339. Furthermore, I have added all your sources as references to support my section on prophetic mysticism in the context of the Judeo-Christian tradition (see lines 338 and 339). Also, I did use one of your sources as reference to the centrality of Moses (see line 367). Finally, I did include all your recommended sources in my list of References. "Please see the attachment."