Hybridity in the Colonial Arts of South India, 16th–18th Centuries
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article presents fascinating material suggestive of the heterogeneity of art and architecture produced in various parts of coastal India under Portuguese colonial rule. It brings together wide-ranging examples, which I consider an attractive feature but also a bit of a weakness, as I will further explain below. It engages with current scholarship and theoretical ideas, although it can do this in a more effective manner. I believe it has the potential to make a compelling case that will be valuable to scholars of early modern south Asia, the Indian Ocean world, the Portuguese empire and other areas/fields.
My main recommendation for improvement is to revise the structure of the article. I needed to read the article twice to have a better grasp of its main argument, and I am still not entirely sure that I am getting it right. This may have to do with the fact that one of the article’s main concepts, hybridity, appears in the title but – if I see this well – is only used for the first time in the text on p. 24 and is only defined in the conclusion. Key concepts should be defined in the introduction. There is also a substantial body of literature about hybridity in early modern art that should be cited and built on here – among others, Dean and Leibsohn 2003, Farago 1995, Gruzinski (on métissage), Fernández-González and Trusted 2020... Doing so will enable the author to better articulate their argument and make their contribution clearer.
As briefly announced above, I also have some doubts around the scope of the article. The article brings together a wide range of examples from India’s Malabar and Coromandel coasts and from the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries. This strikes me as something that could easily fill a book-length study rather than just a journal article. I feel that the article suffers in the sense that examples are only analysed briefly and sometimes hardly at all. I believe if the scope were to be narrowed and the analysis deepened, the article would make a more useful contribution.
Comments on specific passages:
p. 1: quote Mitter lines 25-26: it could be better explained how this comment on ‘contemporary art on a global level’ is relevant to the material discussed in this article.
‘Diverging from the trajectory of numerous studies that underline biased and distorted conceptions of India promoted in European and Indian literary sources’ – it is not fully clear what studies the author has in mind here or what these ‘biased and distorted conceptions’ are. I wonder if a more positive articulation of the way the article relates to existing scholarship can be found.
p. 2: caption for figure 1: this caption does not match the map – please adapt. In general, I observe that there is a need for greater consistency in the article’s captions, which need to follow art historical conventions by including some indication as to an object’s maker, title, (approximate) date, and current collection or location. Including the objects’ materials and dimensions in the captions would be a further helpful addition.
p. 4: ‘Although there is extensive scholarship ...’ – this scholarship needs to be referenced.
I wondered to what extent the location of the polychrome wooden sculptures the author discusses here is not a more significant factor for the lack of scholarship – the carved ivories are mostly in western museum collections and readily available to scholars based in Europe / North America, whereas few of these scholars travel to Goa. This is indeed problematic.
In general the introduction can do a better job announcing the article’s main arguments. It is somewhat confusing that on p. 4 it already begins to discuss the first case study.
Section 2, pp. 5-9: the materials presented are intriguing. However, in this case study in particular more analysis would be required. The discussion is extremely brief and leaves me with all kinds of questions. Who commissioned such statues? What were their purposes? Who were the users of the churches they were made for? What is the evidence for the pigments identified (note 12) and what are the implications of this point? The notion of scale could also be taken into account, as this is a notable difference with the ivories the author mentions by way of comparison.
Section 3, pp. 10-20: this case study is clearly much more ‘meaty’ and very interesting indeed. The visual evidence presented here is compelling. If the author clarifies their overall argument, it will presumably also become more evident how the article contributes to Zupanov’s scholarship on the pulpits.
p. 15: the discussion of theoretical ideas is welcome. I think this can be further strengthened by connecting this passage more explicitly with arguments in the introduction (including the necessary discussion of ‘hybridity’ there).
p. 20: ‘The Portuguese, who were horrified by Indian idol worship...’ – I would suggest inserting ‘what they saw as’ in between ‘by’ and ‘Indian’. I also think this statement needs evidence. In general, I feel the article could discuss Portuguese attitudes with greater subtlety and, indeed, evidence. I am thinking, for example, about figures like humanist and art theorist Francisco de Hollanda or governor of the Estado da Índia Dom João de Castro, who each took an interest in Indian art and architecture. See, for instance, the scholarship of Sylvie Deswarte-Rosa.
Section 4, pp. 20-23: again very interesting material. Similar points apply as above. The author’s contribution could be more clearly delineated. I also felt the brief discussion did not really leave as much room as one would like for analysis.
p. 21, Portuguese demolition of Hindu temples: I wondered to what extent these practices were related to apparently similar practices within Europe (i.e. the conversion of ancient Roman temples into Christian churches; the conversion of mosques into churches and the other way around)? It could be helpful to acknowledge these wider practices so that the article can make clear what was particular about the Indian situation.
‘Neo-Renaissance, Neo-Classical and Baroque churches’ – I found these stylistic labels applied to sixteenth-century churches confusing. Perhaps they can be avoided?
p. 22: It would be extremely helpful to have detailed illustrations of the ‘Hindu amakala-shaped projections’ and of the well located beneath the dome (although I appreciate arranging such illustrations may be difficult).
Section 5, pp. 23-25: the church of San Thome was rebuilt in 1893, but the caption of figure 24, relating to the church altar, states ‘18th century’ – is this correct? If yes, these two different dates could perhaps be very briefly explained?
p. 24: ‘Their churches amazingly resembled temples’ – what sort of temples, and why is this amazing?
It could be made clearer what the point is of the disucssion of the crosses at the bottom of p. 24, by adding a concluding sentence.
p. 25: final sentence of section 5: great sentence that effectively sums up the important findings.
Conclusion, pp. 25-26: as indicated above, the definition of hybridity and of Doniger’s take on this concept needs to be moved to the introduction.
‘It has been demonstrated that the Portuguese, ...’ I am not sure that this is the most salient point to make or that this has indeed been demonstrated. See also my comment on the discussion of Portuguese attitudes above.
I believe the article should probably also be strengthened by engaging with the scholarship of Gauvin Alexander Bailey on Jesuit art in Asia.
Author Response
Cover Letter
Reply to Reader’s CommentsTop of Form
The article presents fascinating material suggestive of the heterogeneity of art and architecture produced in various parts of coastal India under Portuguese colonial rule. It brings together wide-ranging examples, which I consider an attractive feature but also a bit of a weakness, as I will further explain below. It engages with current scholarship and theoretical ideas, although it can do this in a more effective manner. I believe it has the potential to make a compelling case that will be valuable to scholars of early modern south Asia, the Indian Ocean world, the Portuguese empire and other areas/fields.
My main recommendation for improvement is to revise the structure of the article. I needed to read the article twice to have a better grasp of its main argument, and I am still not entirely sure that I am getting it right. This may have to do with the fact that one of the article’s main concepts, hybridity, appears in the title but – if I see this well – is only used for the first time in the text on p. 24 and is only defined in the conclusion. Key concepts should be defined in the introduction. There is also a substantial body of literature about hybridity in early modern art that should be cited and built on here – among others, Dean and Leibsohn 2003, Farago 1995, Gruzinski (on métissage), Fernández-González and Trusted 2020... Doing so will enable the author to better articulate their argument and make their contribution clearer.
REPLY: I have moved up the discussion of hybridity to the introduction of the article, adding new bibliography (as advised above) with discussions of the theoretical aspects of the term, clarifying my reservations with Dean and Keibson and others, for example and more clearly defining my use of the term from the start. (see pp.1-2 in revised submission)
As briefly announced above, I also have some doubts around the scope of the article. The article brings together a wide range of examples from India’s Malabar and Coromandel coasts and from the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries. This strikes me as something that could easily fill a book-length study rather than just a journal article. I feel that the article suffers in the sense that examples are only analysed briefly and sometimes hardly at all. I believe if the scope were to be narrowed and the analysis deepened, the article would make a more useful contribution.
REPLY: I agree that the scope is unusual for an article and could be adapted to a book, however I think it is a suitable contribution as is for the following reasons: 1. This can be seen as a review article that encompasses case studies to justify both a wider and a focused view of the subject; 2. I expect that most readers of this special issue will not be specialists on Indian art and religions and the wider perspective is therefore necessary to give the article contextual significance. In some cases, where I thought this would be necessary, I have added discussions to the specific case studies See e.g. p.10).
Comments on specific passages:
- 1: quote Mitter lines 25-26: it could be better explained how this comment on ‘contemporary art on a global level’ is relevant to the material discussed in this article.
REPLY: I have deleted this sentence.
‘Diverging from the trajectory of numerous studies that underline biased and distorted conceptions of India promoted in European and Indian literary sources’ – it is not fully clear what studies the author has in mind here or what these ‘biased and distorted conceptions’ are. I wonder if a more positive articulation of the way the article relates to existing scholarship can be found.
REPLY: I have expanded this discussion and added new bibliography, also changing the wording (‘biased and distorted conceptions’ is deleted) to give a more objective explanation (see p.1 ff.).
- 2: caption for figure 1: this caption does not match the map – please adapt. In general, I observe that there is a need for greater consistency in the article’s captions, which need to follow art historical conventions by including some indication as to an object’s maker, title, (approximate) date, and current collection or location. Including the objects’ materials and dimensions in the captions would be a further helpful addition.
REPLY: All the captions have been corrected or completed, where necessary (see revised power-point presentations). Please take into consideration that most of the works, particularly sculpture, presented in this paper were created by anonymous artisans and sculptors. There is no way of identifying “an object’s maker”. As for the title and date, not all of the sculptures have identified or dated. Sometimes, when I have suggested an approximate date, it must be understood that this is largely speculative, if I have not been able to examine the work myself or cannot depend upon previous professional research in situ. The practice of copying traditional art forms and iconography over hundreds of years in India makes it even more difficult to date objects. In addition, repainting of polychrome sculpture, for example, creates a camouflage that can be misleading. Please see my reference to destructive restoration on p.7 & Fig.8 in revised text).
- 4: ‘Although there is extensive scholarship ...’ – this scholarship needs to be referenced.
REPLY: Please see pp.5 & 6 and additional bibliography/references in notes 13 & 15.
I wondered to what extent the location of the polychrome wooden sculptures the author discusses here is not a more significant factor for the lack of scholarship – the carved ivories are mostly in western museum collections and readily available to scholars based in Europe / North America, whereas few of these scholars travel to Goa. This is indeed problematic.
REPLY: This is a good point. I have added a sentence in this regard (p.6 above). The fact that I have been doing research in the field, in India, enables me to discover unknown or neglected art treasures.
In general the introduction can do a better job announcing the article’s main arguments. It is somewhat confusing that on p. 4 it already begins to discuss the first case study.
REPLY: I have referred to this problem above (see pp.1& 2).
Section 2, pp. 5-9: the materials presented are intriguing. However, in this case study in particular more analysis would be required. The discussion is extremely brief and leaves me with all kinds of questions. Who commissioned such statues? What were their purposes? Who were the users of the churches they were made for? What is the evidence for the pigments identified (note 12) and what are the implications of this point? The notion of scale could also be taken into account, as this is a notable difference with the ivories the author mentions by way of comparison.
Reply: I think it is clear that the art for churches was commissioned by the Catholic prelates. Their purpose in encouraging conversion of the natives to Catholicism is discussed in the paper. I have added references for the materials used (note 17 in revised text). I have clarified that the large statues were created for altars, and are still to be see there (see Figs.7 & 8).
Section 3, pp. 10-20: this case study is clearly much more ‘meaty’ and very interesting indeed. The visual evidence presented here is compelling. If the author clarifies their overall argument, it will presumably also become more evident how the article contributes to Zupanov’s scholarship on the pulpits.
REPLY: I have attempted to clarify this point. See pp.8-9, 10).
- 15: the discussion of theoretical ideas is welcome. I think this can be further strengthened by connecting this passage more explicitly with arguments in the introduction (including the necessary discussion of ‘hybridity’ there).
- 20: ‘The Portuguese, who were horrified by Indian idol worship...’ – I would suggest inserting ‘what they saw as’ in between ‘by’ and ‘Indian’. I also think this statement needs evidence. In general, I feel the article could discuss Portuguese attitudes with greater subtlety and, indeed, evidence. I am thinking, for example, about figures like humanist and art theorist Francisco de Hollanda or governor of the Estado da Índia Dom João de Castro, who each took an interest in Indian art and architecture. See, for instance, the scholarship of Sylvie Deswarte-Rosa.
REPLY: I have altered the sentence in question. But I believe that there were hardly any Europeans who were receptive to Indian culture. The literature (some of which is quoted or referenced in this paper) is very explicit on this point. The Portuguese carried out one of the worst inquisitions in history and destroyed every remnant of a great artistic culture. I cannot accept that here is room for subtlety. Mitter has beautifully described the European horror of , so called, idol worship or “devil worship”.
Section 4, pp. 20-23: again very interesting material. Similar points apply as above. The author’s contribution could be more clearly delineated. I also felt the brief discussion did not really leave as much room as one would like for analysis.
- 21, Portuguese demolition of Hindu temples: I wondered to what extent these practices were related to apparently similar practices within Europe (i.e. the conversion of ancient Roman temples into Christian churches; the conversion of mosques into churches and the other way around)? It could be helpful to acknowledge these wider practices so that the article can make clear what was particular about the Indian situation.
REPLY: I think this would be a whole different article, introducing multiple cultural, political and religious issues. Here it is too broad a subject and would detract from the focus of my study.
‘Neo-Renaissance, Neo-Classical and Baroque churches’ – I found these stylistic labels applied to sixteenth-century churches confusing. Perhaps they can be avoided?
REPLY: I have corrected this sentence as “During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Portuguese were constructing Neo-Renaissance, Neo-Classical and Baroque churches, designed by European architects in Goa and other trading ports.” (p.13) I wanted to make a point regarding the appropriation of varied European revival styles and I think the labels are historically acceptable.
- 22: It would be extremely helpful to have detailed illustrations of the ‘Hindu amakala-shaped projections’ and of the well located beneath the dome (although I appreciate arranging such illustrations may be difficult).
No photos exist.
Section 5, pp. 23-25: the church of San Thome was rebuilt in 1893, but the caption of figure 24, relating to the church altar, states ‘18th century’ – is this correct? If yes, these two different dates could perhaps be very briefly explained?
I have clarified the dating in the renewed caption.
- 24: ‘Their churches amazingly resembled temples’ – what sort of temples, and why is this amazing?
See discussion on p.17 which answers these questions, with additional bibliography.
It could be made clearer what the point is of the disucssion of the crosses at the bottom of p. 24, by adding a concluding sentence.
- 25: final sentence of section 5: great sentence that effectively sums up the important findings.
Conclusion, pp. 25-26: as indicated above, the definition of hybridity and of Doniger’s take on this concept needs to be moved to the introduction.
This has been done.
‘It has been demonstrated that the Portuguese, ...’ I am not sure that this is the most salient point to make or that this has indeed been demonstrated. See also my comment on the discussion of Portuguese attitudes above.
REPLY: I have altered the sentence in question. But I believe that there were hardly any Europeans who were receptive to Indian culture. The literature (some of which is quoted or referenced in this paper) is very explicit on this point. The Portuguese carried out one of the worst inquisitions in history and destroyed every remnant of a great artistic culture. I cannot accept that here is room for subtlety. Mitter has beautifully described the European horror of ‘so called’ idol worship or ‘devil worship’.
I believe the article should probably also be strengthened by engaging with the scholarship of Gauvin Alexander Bailey on Jesuit art in Asia.
REPLY: Except for a few sentences Bailey does not discuss India. His discussion of Asia deals with Japan. But I have added this reference to a footnote.
Second Reader’s Comments
This discussion is promising and a welcome contribution to the field. I encourage you to consider the following areas for improvement: historiography (clarify the reference to “numerous studies” and engage with the dissimilar theoretical approaches of the scholars that you do mention); methodology (explain the viability of employing geographically disparate examples in your argument––i.e. the nagas); and vocabulary (engage with "heterogeneity" further and sooner, define what is meant by Malabar, and contextualize themes such as “colonial rule” and “Islamic occupation”).
REPLY: I have added my reservations regarding dissimilar theoretical approaches on pp.1-2 and again on p.10.
See definitions and contextualized explanations of the terms “Islamic occupation” and ‘Malabar” in note 7 (the revised text). I believe “colonial rule” is a term which needs no definition; the issue of its context in the present paper is repeatedly addressed.
The author wishes to convey thanks to the readers who have devoted their time to help improve this paper. June 20, 2021Bottom of Form
© 1996-2021 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated
Reviewer 2 Report
This article describes four types of "hybridized" artistic works from Southwest India: polychrome wooden sculptures, human-serpent images on Goan pulpits, architectural elements and decorations in Goan churches constructed on destroyed temple grounds, and peacock imagery in San Thome Cathedral.
The claims that are made in the paper are reasonable and persuasive. I am not convinced that they are of great significance -- or, at least, the author has not made a strong case for their importance. A number of the arguments about Goa are derivative, from Henn or Zupanov; the most original work is related to the human-serpent imagery.
Part of the problem is that the claim is simply that these architectural and artistic products are "hybrid," in a generic sense drawn from Doniger. But this by itself is an unsurprising for anyone who has studied Christianity in South Asia. The argument would be strengthened by, perhaps, demonstrating that these artistic products reveal a distinctive form or element of hybridity -- rather than simply asserting them as hybrid.
I also think that the article is a bit light on prose, and heavy on images, I suspect that some of these images will require that the author or press seek permission to republish. Some are included without identifying the source.
Author Response
Cover Letter
Reply to Reader’s CommentsTop of Form
The article presents fascinating material suggestive of the heterogeneity of art and architecture produced in various parts of coastal India under Portuguese colonial rule. It brings together wide-ranging examples, which I consider an attractive feature but also a bit of a weakness, as I will further explain below. It engages with current scholarship and theoretical ideas, although it can do this in a more effective manner. I believe it has the potential to make a compelling case that will be valuable to scholars of early modern south Asia, the Indian Ocean world, the Portuguese empire and other areas/fields.
My main recommendation for improvement is to revise the structure of the article. I needed to read the article twice to have a better grasp of its main argument, and I am still not entirely sure that I am getting it right. This may have to do with the fact that one of the article’s main concepts, hybridity, appears in the title but – if I see this well – is only used for the first time in the text on p. 24 and is only defined in the conclusion. Key concepts should be defined in the introduction. There is also a substantial body of literature about hybridity in early modern art that should be cited and built on here – among others, Dean and Leibsohn 2003, Farago 1995, Gruzinski (on métissage), Fernández-González and Trusted 2020... Doing so will enable the author to better articulate their argument and make their contribution clearer.
REPLY: I have moved up the discussion of hybridity to the introduction of the article, adding new bibliography (as advised above) with discussions of the theoretical aspects of the term, clarifying my reservations with Dean and Keibson and others, for example and more clearly defining my use of the term from the start. (see pp.1-2 in revised submission)
As briefly announced above, I also have some doubts around the scope of the article. The article brings together a wide range of examples from India’s Malabar and Coromandel coasts and from the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries. This strikes me as something that could easily fill a book-length study rather than just a journal article. I feel that the article suffers in the sense that examples are only analysed briefly and sometimes hardly at all. I believe if the scope were to be narrowed and the analysis deepened, the article would make a more useful contribution.
REPLY: I agree that the scope is unusual for an article and could be adapted to a book, however I think it is a suitable contribution as is for the following reasons: 1. This can be seen as a review article that encompasses case studies to justify both a wider and a focused view of the subject; 2. I expect that most readers of this special issue will not be specialists on Indian art and religions and the wider perspective is therefore necessary to give the article contextual significance. In some cases, where I thought this would be necessary, I have added discussions to the specific case studies See e.g. p.10).
Comments on specific passages:
- 1: quote Mitter lines 25-26: it could be better explained how this comment on ‘contemporary art on a global level’ is relevant to the material discussed in this article.
REPLY: I have deleted this sentence.
‘Diverging from the trajectory of numerous studies that underline biased and distorted conceptions of India promoted in European and Indian literary sources’ – it is not fully clear what studies the author has in mind here or what these ‘biased and distorted conceptions’ are. I wonder if a more positive articulation of the way the article relates to existing scholarship can be found.
REPLY: I have expanded this discussion and added new bibliography, also changing the wording (‘biased and distorted conceptions’ is deleted) to give a more objective explanation (see p.1 ff.).
- 2: caption for figure 1: this caption does not match the map – please adapt. In general, I observe that there is a need for greater consistency in the article’s captions, which need to follow art historical conventions by including some indication as to an object’s maker, title, (approximate) date, and current collection or location. Including the objects’ materials and dimensions in the captions would be a further helpful addition.
REPLY: All the captions have been corrected or completed, where necessary (see revised power-point presentations). Please take into consideration that most of the works, particularly sculpture, presented in this paper were created by anonymous artisans and sculptors. There is no way of identifying “an object’s maker”. As for the title and date, not all of the sculptures have identified or dated. Sometimes, when I have suggested an approximate date, it must be understood that this is largely speculative, if I have not been able to examine the work myself or cannot depend upon previous professional research in situ. The practice of copying traditional art forms and iconography over hundreds of years in India makes it even more difficult to date objects. In addition, repainting of polychrome sculpture, for example, creates a camouflage that can be misleading. Please see my reference to destructive restoration on p.7 & Fig.8 in revised text).
- 4: ‘Although there is extensive scholarship ...’ – this scholarship needs to be referenced.
REPLY: Please see pp.5 & 6 and additional bibliography/references in notes 13 & 15.
I wondered to what extent the location of the polychrome wooden sculptures the author discusses here is not a more significant factor for the lack of scholarship – the carved ivories are mostly in western museum collections and readily available to scholars based in Europe / North America, whereas few of these scholars travel to Goa. This is indeed problematic.
REPLY: This is a good point. I have added a sentence in this regard (p.6 above). The fact that I have been doing research in the field, in India, enables me to discover unknown or neglected art treasures.
In general the introduction can do a better job announcing the article’s main arguments. It is somewhat confusing that on p. 4 it already begins to discuss the first case study.
REPLY: I have referred to this problem above (see pp.1& 2).
Section 2, pp. 5-9: the materials presented are intriguing. However, in this case study in particular more analysis would be required. The discussion is extremely brief and leaves me with all kinds of questions. Who commissioned such statues? What were their purposes? Who were the users of the churches they were made for? What is the evidence for the pigments identified (note 12) and what are the implications of this point? The notion of scale could also be taken into account, as this is a notable difference with the ivories the author mentions by way of comparison.
Reply: I think it is clear that the art for churches was commissioned by the Catholic prelates. Their purpose in encouraging conversion of the natives to Catholicism is discussed in the paper. I have added references for the materials used (note 17 in revised text). I have clarified that the large statues were created for altars, and are still to be see there (see Figs.7 & 8).
Section 3, pp. 10-20: this case study is clearly much more ‘meaty’ and very interesting indeed. The visual evidence presented here is compelling. If the author clarifies their overall argument, it will presumably also become more evident how the article contributes to Zupanov’s scholarship on the pulpits.
REPLY: I have attempted to clarify this point. See pp.8-9, 10).
- 15: the discussion of theoretical ideas is welcome. I think this can be further strengthened by connecting this passage more explicitly with arguments in the introduction (including the necessary discussion of ‘hybridity’ there).
- 20: ‘The Portuguese, who were horrified by Indian idol worship...’ – I would suggest inserting ‘what they saw as’ in between ‘by’ and ‘Indian’. I also think this statement needs evidence. In general, I feel the article could discuss Portuguese attitudes with greater subtlety and, indeed, evidence. I am thinking, for example, about figures like humanist and art theorist Francisco de Hollanda or governor of the Estado da Índia Dom João de Castro, who each took an interest in Indian art and architecture. See, for instance, the scholarship of Sylvie Deswarte-Rosa.
REPLY: I have altered the sentence in question. But I believe that there were hardly any Europeans who were receptive to Indian culture. The literature (some of which is quoted or referenced in this paper) is very explicit on this point. The Portuguese carried out one of the worst inquisitions in history and destroyed every remnant of a great artistic culture. I cannot accept that here is room for subtlety. Mitter has beautifully described the European horror of , so called, idol worship or “devil worship”.
Section 4, pp. 20-23: again very interesting material. Similar points apply as above. The author’s contribution could be more clearly delineated. I also felt the brief discussion did not really leave as much room as one would like for analysis.
- 21, Portuguese demolition of Hindu temples: I wondered to what extent these practices were related to apparently similar practices within Europe (i.e. the conversion of ancient Roman temples into Christian churches; the conversion of mosques into churches and the other way around)? It could be helpful to acknowledge these wider practices so that the article can make clear what was particular about the Indian situation.
REPLY: I think this would be a whole different article, introducing multiple cultural, political and religious issues. Here it is too broad a subject and would detract from the focus of my study.
‘Neo-Renaissance, Neo-Classical and Baroque churches’ – I found these stylistic labels applied to sixteenth-century churches confusing. Perhaps they can be avoided?
REPLY: I have corrected this sentence as “During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Portuguese were constructing Neo-Renaissance, Neo-Classical and Baroque churches, designed by European architects in Goa and other trading ports.” (p.13) I wanted to make a point regarding the appropriation of varied European revival styles and I think the labels are historically acceptable.
- 22: It would be extremely helpful to have detailed illustrations of the ‘Hindu amakala-shaped projections’ and of the well located beneath the dome (although I appreciate arranging such illustrations may be difficult).
No photos exist.
Section 5, pp. 23-25: the church of San Thome was rebuilt in 1893, but the caption of figure 24, relating to the church altar, states ‘18th century’ – is this correct? If yes, these two different dates could perhaps be very briefly explained?
I have clarified the dating in the renewed caption.
- 24: ‘Their churches amazingly resembled temples’ – what sort of temples, and why is this amazing?
See discussion on p.17 which answers these questions, with additional bibliography.
It could be made clearer what the point is of the disucssion of the crosses at the bottom of p. 24, by adding a concluding sentence.
- 25: final sentence of section 5: great sentence that effectively sums up the important findings.
Conclusion, pp. 25-26: as indicated above, the definition of hybridity and of Doniger’s take on this concept needs to be moved to the introduction.
This has been done.
‘It has been demonstrated that the Portuguese, ...’ I am not sure that this is the most salient point to make or that this has indeed been demonstrated. See also my comment on the discussion of Portuguese attitudes above.
REPLY: I have altered the sentence in question. But I believe that there were hardly any Europeans who were receptive to Indian culture. The literature (some of which is quoted or referenced in this paper) is very explicit on this point. The Portuguese carried out one of the worst inquisitions in history and destroyed every remnant of a great artistic culture. I cannot accept that here is room for subtlety. Mitter has beautifully described the European horror of ‘so called’ idol worship or ‘devil worship’.
I believe the article should probably also be strengthened by engaging with the scholarship of Gauvin Alexander Bailey on Jesuit art in Asia.
REPLY: Except for a few sentences Bailey does not discuss India. His discussion of Asia deals with Japan. But I have added this reference to a footnote.
Second Reader’s Comments
This discussion is promising and a welcome contribution to the field. I encourage you to consider the following areas for improvement: historiography (clarify the reference to “numerous studies” and engage with the dissimilar theoretical approaches of the scholars that you do mention); methodology (explain the viability of employing geographically disparate examples in your argument––i.e. the nagas); and vocabulary (engage with "heterogeneity" further and sooner, define what is meant by Malabar, and contextualize themes such as “colonial rule” and “Islamic occupation”).
REPLY: I have added my reservations regarding dissimilar theoretical approaches on pp.1-2 and again on p.10.
See definitions and contextualized explanations of the terms “Islamic occupation” and ‘Malabar” in note 7 (the revised text). I believe “colonial rule” is a term which needs no definition; the issue of its context in the present paper is repeatedly addressed.
© 1996-2021 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated
Reviewer 3 Report
This discussion is promising and a welcome contribution to the field. I encourage you to consider the following areas for improvement: historiography (clarify the reference to “numerous studies” and engage with the dissimilar theoretical approaches of the scholars that you do mention); methodology (explain the viability of employing geographically disparate examples in your argument––i.e. the nagas); and vocabulary (engage with "heterogeneity" further and sooner, define what is meant by Malabar, and contextualize themes such as “colonial rule” and “Islamic occupation”).
Author Response
Reviewer 2: This article describes four types of "hybridized" artistic works from Southwest India: polychrome wooden sculptures, human-serpent images on Goan pulpits, architectural elements and decorations in Goan churches constructed on destroyed temple grounds, and peacock imagery in San Thome Cathedral. The claims that are made in the paper are reasonable and persuasive. I am not convinced that they are of great significance -- or, at least, the author has not made a strong case for their importance.
Reply:
I would like to think that the interdisciplinary nature of my paper constitutes a contribution to the study of colonial art in South India, expanding on previous studies and engaging in discourse with varied approaches. The combined investigation of historical, anthropological, ecclesiastic and art-historical material, with some focus on relevant aspects of Indian religions and culture renders it, I hope, a meaningful addition to the scholarship.
A number of the arguments about Goa are derivative, from Henn or Zupanov; the most original work is related to the human-serpent imagery. Part of the problem is that the claim is simply that these architectural and artistic products are "hybrid," in a generic sense drawn from Doniger. But this by itself is an unsurprising for anyone who has studied Christianity in South Asia.
Reply:
The studies by Henn and Zupanov were part of my discussion of varied approaches to the issues of my article. In the case of Henn, his approach and interpretations inspired my own investigations, in which I introduced new examples related to “the destruction of Hindu temples and images and their replacement with Catholic equivalents”. The examples I presented were not repetitions of Henn’s work, but further demonstrated the survival or revival of traditional native sacred art forms and iconography.
Zupanov’s pulpit study was the basis of my own discussion, in which I agreed with her statement that the iconography of the Indo-Portuguese pulpits "meant different things to different audiences precisely because they organized a 'complex field of visual reciprocity' between the image/object and the beholder" (p.9) but I disagreed with her conclusion that "the celebration of colonial power over all chthonic creatures". (p.10) My arguments follow on pp.10-12.
The argument would be strengthened by, perhaps, demonstrating that these artistic products reveal a distinctive form or element of hybridity -- rather than simply asserting them as hybrid.
REPLY:
I have expanded some of my discussions to more clearly demonstrate the hybrid aspects of forms and iconography.
For example, on pp.5-6, I have inserted additional material and references regarding the ivory Good Shepherd statuettes, demonstrating how the complex elements of European derived iconography, probably transmitted to Portuguese India by the Jesuits, and local Indian ivory carving were combined to create a hybrid product geared to European clients.
On pp.17-18, you will find another example of newly introduced material. I have described in detail some of the architectural and sculptural elements on St. Thomas churches that are derived from Hindu temples, thus illustrating their hybrid nature. Here too are additional references.
On p.20, in my conclusion I have repeated that “hybridity is used in this study as a comprehensive umbrella term” and have briefly reviewed the adaptations of this term in my research.
I also think that the article is a bit light on prose, and heavy on images, I suspect that some of these images will require that the author or press seek permission to republish. Some are included without identifying the source.
Reply:
I am an art-historian, and the art-historic methodology of this research has been clearly stated, as in p.1: “I aim to examine ways in which Indian cultural traditions and religious beliefs found substantial expression in visual arts that were ostensibly geared to reinforce Christian worship and colonial ideology”. The images are illustrations that complement analytical discussions of an interdisciplinary nature.
The captions have been completed with the available information.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It is clear the author has made improvements to the manuscript in response to the reviewers’ comments. As far as my own suggestions go, a discussion of hybridity has been moved to the beginning of the introduction, and several smaller suggestions for improvement have been taken on board. However, the more fundamental reservations I voiced in the first round still stand. I believe it is essential that the problematically broad scope of the article is reconsidered. The structure of the article also still needs serious attention. It needs to be articulated more effectively what the main contribution of this article is. The examples on which it builds need to be fewer and they need more in-depth analysis. The author’s use of the concept of hybridity needs to be fleshed out further in connection to different approaches in the literature.
Author Response
After making an effort to comply with the requests of this reader and making suitable additions, some of the same criticisms are repeated. I have not been given clear comments or specific guidelines from this reader for corrections. I would like to haver well defined explanations in order to re-edit the paper.
For example, see the following comments:
1.” I believe it is essential that the problematically broad scope of the article is reconsidered”.
My question: What does this reader consider unnecessary and would advise deleting?
- The examples on which it builds need to be fewer and they need more in-depth analysis”, see further reply below.
My question: Again, which examples are superfluous and which are lacking in depth?
- The author’s use of the concept of hybridity needs to be fleshed out….”
My reply: This is not a theoretical article dealing with philosophical definitions of hybridity. It is an art-historical study based on material culture and the iconography thereof. As this reader requested, I previously added some discussions regarding various approaches to the term hybridity, but that is definitely not the aim of my study, as I clearly explained in the introduction and text.
In sum, at this point I am not making any further changes. I disagree that the broad scope is a negative aspect of the study. In my opinion, the broad scope not only strengthens my arguments, but enables the reader, who may not be familiar with East Asian art and architecture, particularly that of India, to comprehend the significance of conflicts between native art traditions and the imposition of colonial art forms that are meant to replace them. This is the aim of my paper as explained therein, more than once.
Reviewer 3 Report
This essay can benefit from better structure and convincing engagement with the scholars who scaffold the theoretical framework of the analysis. Compelling contextualization of the distinct geographic and historical circumstances with which the analysis intersects remains wanting, as is the vocabulary employed in those discussions. A robust argument for the originality of this investigation would be useful as would an explanation for the individuality of the case studies that are highlighted and the methodological approach that is employed.
Author Response
I find the comments in this second list of criticisms to be too general and not specific enough to enable me to try and comply with his/her expectations.
For example, the sentence: “This essay can benefit from better structure and convincing engagement with the scholars who scaffold the theoretical framework of the analysis.”
My reply: What would the reader suggest to be a better structure? As far as I can see the progression of my arguments is clearly organized. I clarify at the start what my aim is, then demonstrate the issues in specific exemplary case studies, and finally I revue in my conclusion the methods adopted to achieve my aim.
Regarding “convincing engagement with the scholars…”
This is not a theoretical article dealing with philosophical definitions of hybridity. It is an art-historical study based on material culture and the iconography thereof. I previously added some discussions regarding approaches to the term hybridity, but that is definitely not the aim of my study, as I clearly explained in the introduction and text.
Regarding Readers comment: Do I really need “a robust argument for the originality of this investigation”?
Please note that I have introduced new, unpublished material in my paper (this applies to many of my figurative examples). Figures 4, 6, 7, 8, and 17 are works of art that have never been studied before and the images (mostly my own photos taken in situ) have not been previously published. Obviously, my analyses of these works are unprecedented.
In sum, at this point I am not making any further changes. I have attempted to clarify the significance of conflicts between native art traditions and the imposition of colonial art forms that are meant to replace them. This is the aim of my paper as explained therein, more than once. In my opinion the methodological approach is clearly explained throughout the text and in the conclusion.
