Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I find the paper well researched. It is an interesting exploration of a very specialized topic. I have only little to criticize; however, I would suggest to include a brief explanation for the statement in line 172-73, which I did not find obvious.

Author Response

I have changed the statement and hope it can be accepted in its new form. Thank you for pointing out the problem.

Reviewer 2 Report

Review report Musical fragments from monasteries in Northern Europe

General remarks:

1. The introduction is more of a general background than directed towards what is being discussed in the article. It would be better to go more directly into the case presented in the article and frame the research questions explicitly. Since I suppose most readers of Religions not are familiar with St Olav, liturgy in the middle ages, saints’ offices and plainchant, these issues need to be briefly explained to enhance transparency. The prime method used seems to be comparing monastic and secular cursus in order to discern the number of matins’ antiphons and matins responsories. Since this methodology appears to be crucial for the discussion of the findings it needs to be emphasised more and clearly put forth as the methodological tool. It is also an important methodological contribution to the field of fragment studies in the Nordic countries so it could be put forth as an important way of working with questions on attribution of this material. There is a lot of interesting information in the article but a major revision is needed in order to clarify this and to make the pieces fit together.
2. Spelling and terminology: make sure that antiphon/-s is used throughout. Write vespers, not vesper. Saint or St Olav, now bot are used. Little hours is the correct term.
3. The title of the article promises more than what is achieved in the article. Rename the article so that it reflects what is actually discussed. The introduction states that sources from Iceland and Sweden (today’s Sweden or Sweden in the middle ages?) are discussed from a very specific viewpoint: Olav’s office so in other words much more limited than the content of the article. Northern Europe is not really covered in this research.
4. Use a consistent way of naming the liturgical occasions throughout using table 1 as a model. That means that the listing starting on line 77 will need to add M in front of the abbreviations. R meaning responsory can mean several types of responsorial liturgical singing so good to be clear on this point what is meant here. The information in footnote 8 might be moved to the end of the article in a list of terminology so that the unexperienced reader easily can orientate in the vocabulary. This list beginning line 77 also needs reference to the source it is based on.

Line 51: “some sources”: state clearer how many.

Line 53: 3. A monastic office for Saint Olav: state at the beginning of the paragraph which fragment is discussed, this is impossible to understand now.

Line 97: Needs a bit more information concerning chronology and context. For example: From when are the earliest sources for Olav’s office? First notated sources? The adding of different items, when did that take place in time? Transmission history? How many sources? Short information on his cult. These bits of information are found on different places in the article, but it would be very helpful to have them gathered in one place, preferable somewhere at the beginning of the article before going into detail concerning liturgy and sources.

Footnot 7: Looks as a Latin mnemonic device or exercise?

Line 111-112: Explain in what why the ordering of matins responsories would be distorted if the proper chants not was kept as the final responsory in each nocturn.

Line 116-117: “Here three responsories … to fill the gap.” Does this mean matins responsories 7, 8, and 9?

Line 126: Using compiling talking about new texts and melodies seems contradictionary. What is described in the preceding sentence are contrafact techniques, but the author seems more to mean composition in the modern sense? Maybe composition, compilation, contrafact need some explanation for the reader not familiar with how plainchant was thought about in the middle ages.

Line 131-133: “Celebrating a saint … this particular saint”. This statement can and must be backed up by references, there is plenty of research to refer to.

Line 142-143: “The choice of Miles Christi … in connection with St Olav.” This statement is referred using a source from 1519 (Nidaros Breviary) but this is such a late date that it not is surprising that lots of existing traditions existed at this time. Was it maybe a way of codifying a diocesan liturgy and legitimize it by help of Olav, in line with how many other dioceses acted at this time in Europe?

Line 150 and the following: Modal order comes a bit out of the blue: explain why this is interesting. You have this far only discussed matins, now comes vespers and lauds which are services that need some explanation. The text from 150 up to line 168 is very condensed and difficult to follow. The x in line 168 is enigmatic.

Line 174-177: This gives a bit of important background information on Olav’s office which need to come earlier together with a general introduction to the office.

Line 178: Why is the attribution Cistercian and by whom is this made? By the author? If not, does the author agree? A few words on this would strengthen the connection with the title of the article if retained. The origin is mentioned on line 238 referring to a publication from 1971, but since this is an important part of the argument the reader would need to know more about this attribution, which according to the footnote seems to be made based on the formulas. There is a substantial and living research going on on the Cistercian order, I think this could be discussed a bit more since it is an important part of the argument.

Line 184: The abbreviations AA1-6 an RR1-2 needs explanation.

Line 188 and 198: Folio 1 and folio 2 need reference to which fragment it concerns.

Line 210: “The Swedish source…”: give exact source.

Line 214-215: regarding the antiphons … it contains.” The sentence is a bit unclear. Does it mean that this fragment (=29710 and 29711, one of them or both?) has the biggest number of chant items for the feast of Olav than any other source?

Line 219: Which cantica is meant by ad cantica? Readers might not be familiar with that cantica refers to a text from the New testament while psalms come from the Old testament Book of Palms.

The paragraph in lines 214-232 seems to describe the situation in the 15^th century departing from the fragments 29710 and 29711. It would be helpful with more discussion on the transmission history, when different uses can be established etc. and the chronology emphasised more so that the reader can understand how the Olav office developed over time.

234: Table 1 is very informative and uses a naming I would recommend throughout the article with a list of abbreviations explaining them all. Siglum for the sources must be inserted in the table. Including the incipits for the chants would make the table even more useful, now it is only found in three cases. This makes it for example difficult to know if the Magnificat antiphon is the same in secular use, monastic use and the Swedish source. Why are there no modes for for example matins invitatory antiphon and the Magnificat antiphons in first vespers? Especially the moving around with matins responsories can easily be demonstrated in the table if inserted. The antiphons for the little hours in the monastic use is unclear, it seems to mean that lauds antiphons are used for the little hours? I think there is a lot of interesting information in this table that can be more fleshed out in the text!

Line 249: Interesting information on that a secular office existed in 1237, this needs to come earlier on the transmission history of the office.

Line 252: “All of the Swedish fragments…”: That means six fragments in total? I think the discussion on the provenance will need to come at the beginning of this section before going into detail about the content. All fragments need to be listed in the references.

Line 262: Here begins a section on more general matters concerning preserved fragments from Icelandic religious institutions. It is difficult to see how this connects to the previous very detailed discussion on the office of Olav. In order to frame the article better this section could be omitted or placed in an abbreviated form at the beginning of the article describing the source situation in general before going into detail on Olav.

Line 269: Which National Archives?

Line 272: Which National Library? Footnote 27: Give English translation of Icelandic quotation.

Line 313: Conclusion could be more specific. Here it appears as Benedictine Icelandic institutions were of prime importance in the article. State research question/s at the beginning which you return to clearly at the end. Which new knowledge has been achieved by the investigation of these fragments?

Line 328 References: The sources discussed also need to be included in the references (see comment line 252).

 

 

Author Response

Please see attachement.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Review report revised version Musical fragments from monasteries in Northern Europe

General remarks to revised version:

I have taken part of the suthor's response which clarified many things. A number of improvements were asked for which in many cases have been undertaken which has clarified the text. However there are still some points that not have been revised. The author has explained this in the response but since the journal Religions neither is a liturgical nor a plainchant journal, the issue commented on below in comment nr 1 on St Olav, liturgy in the middle ages, saints’ offices and plainchant is still difficult to grasp for readers not familiar with the field. St Olav is still an enigmatic figure where the reader for example get no information who he was and when he lived. It is clear that I and the author have different views on this but a few sentences as a short background would be much needed. Not many sentences but something to get the reader not familiar with the subject on board. The text has a lot of interesting details that need some context to come alive. I will in the following go through the comments. In the cases where the issue has been clarified the comment has been crossed out. The numbering of the lines refers to the unrevised version.  

1. The introduction is more of a general background than directed towards what is being discussed in the article. It would be better to go more directly into the case presented in the article and frame the research questions explicitly. Since I suppose most readers of Religions not are familiar with St Olav, liturgy in the middle ages, saints’ offices and plainchant, these issues need to be briefly explained to enhance transparency. The prime method used seems to be comparing monastic and secular cursus in order to discern the number of matins’ antiphons and matins responsories. Since this methodology appears to be crucial for the discussion of the findings it needs to be emphasised more and clearly put forth as the methodological tool. It is also an important methodological contribution to the field of fragment studies in the Nordic countries so it could be put forth as an important way of working with questions on attribution of this material. There is a lot of interesting information in the article but a major revision is needed in order to clarify this and to make the pieces fit together.

Comment 30 May 2021: See above.

2. Spelling and terminology: make sure that antiphon/-s is used throughout. Write vespers, not vesper. Saint or St Olav, now bot are used. Little hours is the correct term.
3. The title of the article promises more than what is achieved in the article. Rename the article so that it reflects what is actually discussed. The introduction states that sources from Iceland and Sweden (today’s Sweden or Sweden in the middle ages?) are discussed from a very specific viewpoint: Olav’s office so in other words much more limited than the content of the article. Northern Europe is not really covered in this research.

Comment 30 May 2021: The title has not been altered but I think it should. Northern Europe and Nordic countries are not the same, Germany for example if sometimes included in Northern Europe, and the article mainly addresses Iceland and (medieval?) Sweden.

4. Use a consistent way of naming the liturgical occasions throughout using table 1 as a model. That means that the listing starting on line 77 will need to add M in front of the abbreviations. R meaning responsory can mean several types of responsorial liturgical singing so good to be clear on this point what is meant here. The information in footnote 8 might be moved to the end of the article in a list of terminology so that the unexperienced reader easily can orientate in the vocabulary. This list beginning line 77 also needs reference to the source it is based on.

Comment 30 May 2021: The reference asked for in the last sentence is not added. In the author’s response is says that it is from the fragments discusses, so this could be added for clarification. .

Line 51: “some sources”: state clearer how many.

Line 53: 3. A monastic office for Saint Olav: state at the beginning of the paragraph which fragment is discussed, this is impossible to understand now.

Line 97: Needs a bit more information concerning chronology and context. For example: From when are the earliest sources for Olav’s office? First notated sources? The adding of different items, when did that take place in time? Transmission history? How many sources? Short information on his cult. These bits of information are found on different places in the article, but it would be very helpful to have them gathered in one place, preferable somewhere at the beginning of the article before going into detail concerning liturgy and sources.

Comment 30 May 2021: See general remark. A little context is really needed, just something short even if this not is the main point for the article.

Footnot 7: Looks as a Latin mnemonic device or exercise?

Line 111-112: Explain in what why the ordering of matins responsories would be distorted if the proper chants not was kept as the final responsory in each nocturn.

Comment 30 May 2021: This is not explained. If this is important for the argument, emphasize this.

Line 116-117: “Here three responsories … to fill the gap.” Does this mean matins responsories 7, 8, and 9?

Comment 30 May 2021: This is not clarified but well explained in the author’s response!

Line 126: Using compiling talking about new texts and melodies seems contradictionary. What is described in the preceding sentence are contrafact techniques, but the author seems more to mean composition in the modern sense? Maybe composition, compilation, contrafact need some explanation for the reader not familiar with how plainchant was thought about in the middle ages.

Line 131-133: “Celebrating a saint … this particular saint”. This statement can and must be backed up by references, there is plenty of research to refer to.

Line 142-143: “The choice of Miles Christi … in connection with St Olav.” This statement is referred using a source from 1519 (Nidaros Breviary) but this is such a late date that it not is surprising that lots of existing traditions existed at this time. Was it maybe a way of codifying a diocesan liturgy and legitimize it by help of Olav, in line with how many other dioceses acted at this time in Europe?

Comment 30 May 2021: I see the point in the author’s response but concerns the overall question on the transmission history of the office that needs some minimal explanation.

 Line 150 and the following: Modal order comes a bit out of the blue: explain why this is interesting. You have this far only discussed matins, now comes vespers and lauds which are services that need some explanation. The text from 150 up to line 168 is very condensed and difficult to follow. The x in line 168 is enigmatic.

Comment 30 May 2021: I still don’t see how the x signifies the mode of the added chants.

Line 174-177: This gives a bit of important background information on Olav’s office which need to come earlier together with a general introduction to the office.

Comment 30 May 2021: This is partly improved but somewhere at the beginning of the article a short introduction to Olav and his office is needed.

Line 178: Why is the attribution Cistercian and by whom is this made? By the author? If not, does the author agree? A few words on this would strengthen the connection with the title of the article if retained. The origin is mentioned on line 238 referring to a publication from 1971, but since this is an important part of the argument the reader would need to know more about this attribution, which according to the footnote seems to be made based on the formulas. There is a substantial and living research going on on the Cistercian order, I think this could be discussed a bit more since it is an important part of the argument.

Comment 30 May 2021: The attribution to the Cistercians is made very late in the section, but makes more sense now in the new context of the improvements.

Line 184: The abbreviations AA1-6 an RR1-2 needs explanation.

Line 188 and 198: Folio 1 and folio 2 need reference to which fragment it concerns.

Line 210: “The Swedish source…”: give exact source.

Comment 30 May 2021: Not done, I assume this source is 29711? Please insert exact source, is might seem as a repetition but I think it is useful for the reader.

Line 214-215: regarding the antiphons … it contains.” The sentence is a bit unclear. Does it mean that this fragment (=29710 and 29711, one of them or both?) has the biggest number of chant items for the feast of Olav than any other source?

Line 219: Which cantica is meant by ad cantica? Readers might not be familiar with that cantica refers to a text from the New testament while psalms come from the Old testament Book of Palms.

The paragraph in lines 214-232 seems to describe the situation in the 15^th century departing from the fragments 29710 and 29711. It would be helpful with more discussion on the transmission history, when different uses can be established etc. and the chronology emphasised more so that the reader can understand how the Olav office developed over time.

Comment 30 May 2021: Again, the reader really need some information on the transmission history.

234: Table 1 is very informative and uses a naming I would recommend throughout the article with a list of abbreviations explaining them all. Siglum for the sources must be inserted in the table. Including the incipits for the chants would make the table even more useful, now it is only found in three cases. This makes it for example difficult to know if the Magnificat antiphon is the same in secular use, monastic use and the Swedish source. Why are there no modes for for example matins invitatory antiphon and the Magnificat antiphons in first vespers? Especially the moving around with matins responsories can easily be demonstrated in the table if inserted. The antiphons for the little hours in the monastic use is unclear, it seems to mean that lauds antiphons are used for the little hours? I think there is a lot of interesting information in this table that can be more fleshed out in the text!

Comment 30 May 2021: The table is improved and the genre abbreviations applied consistently throughout except for lines 108 and 110 in the revised version. In the author’s response much useful information is given concerning the choice of information given in the table. This would be useful for the reader to take part of!

Line 249: Interesting information on that a secular office existed in 1237, this needs to come earlier on the transmission history of the office.

Comment 30 May 2021: This comment is part of the general restructuring of the article that is needed on transmission history of the office etc. This information comes too late in the article.

Line 252: “All of the Swedish fragments…”: That means six fragments in total? I think the discussion on the provenance will need to come at the beginning of this section before going into detail about the content. All fragments need to be listed in the references.

Line 262: Here begins a section on more general matters concerning preserved fragments from Icelandic religious institutions. It is difficult to see how this connects to the previous very detailed discussion on the office of Olav. In order to frame the article better this section could be omitted or placed in an abbreviated form at the beginning of the article describing the source situation in general before going into detail on Olav.

Comment 30 May 2021: This section has a few revisions, I think it makes more sense now but if this section is a consequence of the sources earlier discussed in the text a short introductory text to state the argument would help the reader.  

Line 269: Which National Archives?

Line 272: Which National Library? Footnote 27: Give English translation of Icelandic quotation.

Comment 30 May 2021: I think that translations should be given in the cases when it serves the reader, and here was one such case. Good point to ask editor for advice!

Line 313: Conclusion could be more specific. Here it appears as Benedictine Icelandic institutions were of prime importance in the article. State research question/s at the beginning which you return to clearly at the end. Which new knowledge has been achieved by the investigation of these fragments?

Comment 30 May 2021: This is improved but I still think that the new insights gained by this investigation can be more clearly stated. The relation between Benedictine and Cistercian liturgies need to be addressed since Cistercians not are mentioned at all in the conclusion. The Cistercians by the way were more popular in medieval Sweden than the Benedictines.

Line 328 References: The sources discussed also need to be included in the references (see comment line 252).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf