A Transatlantic Tale of Monsters and Virgins: Our Lady of Sorrows and the Crocodile

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well written (although a number of errros remain), and seemingly well argued. However, it is troublesome on a number of levels. Firstly, there are major absences in the bibliographic references which either denote that this is the work of a young scholar in the initial stages of his/her career and is thus only familiar with a very limited number of references, or otherwise, is owed to a deliberate desire to omit and appropriate other people´s research. Sections which point towards the first possibility include the very brief mention of globalization studies and circulation history which can, in no terms, be accessed or summarized simply by referencing one author, such as Gruzinski (line 180). The lack of a broader sense for the field´s transformations is what denotes perhaps that this is the work of someone who is new to the field and still needs to learn more before publishing.  Secondly, even methodologically, the attempt to connect Gruzinski´s theory on the objects of memory (lines 213 on) to this context is problematic since it is a different context from that addressed by the author. Thirdly, the lengthy note (20), defining exvotos, also suggests that these themes are new to the author. Such basic definitions seem totally unnecessary for this journal and its readers.

However, all of these observations are secondary in comparison to the more grave impression that this article projects, and that is the feeling that while not incurring in traditional plagiarism (of a published text), the article has appropriated information and ideas (the very topic itself) from materials that circulate and are available through the web, documentaries, taped lectures, and visits and reviews to exhibitions.  Unless the person who has authored this article is one of the people referenced in the notes for their academic work on the Canary Islands and this chapel and its patron (in which case, I retract my statements), I feel very strongly that it should not be published. It lacks originality and, as I say, is using other people´s work without sufficient acknowledgement. More precisely, I draw your attention to the display of these two works (the Virgin and the Crocodile) in the exhibition of the Museo del Prado, Tornaviaje: arte iberoamericano en España  (2021) when, for the first time, these two pieces (otherwise in a remote location where few have been) were displayed publicly together. This was done in a dramatic way, and the display received a lot of public attention in the media. Furthermore, the display included a lengthy wall label explicating many of the same ideas (and sources, Ripa, etc.) put forth in this article. Finally, a public lecture by the curator of this section of the exhibition (Pablo Amador Marrero) was delivered at the museum (available online) and half of it is dedicated to explicating this pairing, the circulation it involved, and its various interpretations. It is in fact rather strange that the very same authors that this lecture cites for ideas about materiality and distance (Siracusano and Rodríguez Romero, Portús, and Alcalá) are also centerpieces of the interpretation here. It is not just that the two (lecture and article) use the same materials, it is the way they are used that is identical.  

 In summary, I fail to see what is original in this article. 

Author Response

please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting and well-argued paper. The writing is excellent and easy to follow. I find your conclusions about the objects and the texts convincing.

My recommendations are:

--include an image of the objects (sculpture and caiman)

--explain a bit more thoroughly Gruzinski's rhetorics of alterity.

--As an article that emphasizes materiality, describe the materiality of the  sculpture more thoroughly in the paragraph that begins on line 122. Is it bust-length or full-length? Is it an imagen de vestir in gowns that can be changed or is the clothing all carved? Did the sculptor employ the encarnacion and estofado processes to create the skin and textiles? Is is painted in lifelike colors? Is the hair carved or does it have a wig? Are the eyes glass? Teeth ivory? Real jewelry and dagger? Does it look today as it did in the 18th century? 

--Clarifying this materiality will only benefit your argument because ivory teeth, flesh made via encarnacion, etc. all carried meanings tied to locations and movement. For example, encarnacion travels to the Americas, so its use evokes European-ness. You mention a local hairstyle. What about the dress? If it is an imagen de vestir, this material would be donated or purchased in New Spain. It is, therefore, as American as the cayman.

--I recommend a more explicit description of how two objects alone can constitute a wunderkabinet. Also, what is the relationship between a wunderkabinet (usually found in secular contexts) and religion?

--It would benefit the article to comment on how an Indiano ends up getting the royal treasurer to write the introduction. Doing this will support the claim made earlier in the article about the Indiano's rising social status as demonstrated by visual displays.

--line 244. The text states that the shrine is transformed into the wunderkabinet, but it would benefit from thought about how other items in the shrine were transformed similarly into exotica, now seen with new eyes in this wunderkabinet.

--How, specifically, do the sculpture and the caiman transform religious practice? Liturgically?

--What about the materiality of the sermon as book? You have presented the words of the sermon but have not engaged the book as a material thing that can travel great distances, in different directions, simultaneously. And tied Tenerife to Cadiz. I'd recommend a brief mention of this possibility around line 277. This relates to your discussion of distances and locality around line 307. 

--line 374. Mexico as "center" is dropped in without comment (and the Canary Islands as "periphery"). Since Mexico has traditionally been cast as the periphery, are you saying that notions of center and periphery are contingent to the point of being irrelevant? Or that center and periphery play out repeatedly in different contexts that allow Mexico to be periphery to some and center to others? This deserves a little attention, if you are going to engage these terms at all.

My preference is to not use center/periphery, or to do so carefully. They are too polar and imprecise. The Canary Islands were central to the settlement of several regions of New Spain. Likewise, they were a stopping point on the Carrera de Indias, so one could argue that Sevilla or Cadiz were, therefore, also peripheries. Solo Madrid es corte, right?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some typos and awkward word choices. I recommend an edit.

Here are some examples:

--The citation callout numbers are sometimes placed inside the punctuation (as in Latin American publishing) and sometimes after. 

--Line 165: Calls the Virgin "him."

--missing space on line 115

--line 202 typo in exvoto

--lines 142-143. There is an extra "to." It should be "...he intended to help the residents of the lower area of the island with a "spiritual benefit." 

--Throughout: Virgin is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. See lines 279, 281, 304. If Virgin is being used in place of the name Mary, it should be capitalized. If the intention is to point out her status as virginal, lower case is fine. I believe the author should be capitalizing Virgin throughout.

--line 389 is missing a comma after shrine.

--line 397 should be "differs in its" (not differs in their).

--line 402 is missing a word after "another." Another what?

--line 409 check word choice: interception or intersection?

--I recommend a review of all translations of original text to make them more readable. Several are a bit unclear because they have been translated word for word. 

Author Response

please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Impressions

 

This article deals with a specific image, Our Lady of Sorrows, and its transatlantic voyage from New Spain to Tenerife in the Canary Islands. The author seeks to demonstrate that cultural (religious) influence, specifically as it relates to Catholic images, moved in two directions and not just from the Iberian peninsula to Spanish America. More specifically, the author is interested in the materiality of this Marian devotion, which was accompanied by a stuffed crocodile, and the ways in which it contributed to the development of a new sacred cartography.

 

Here are a few general observations, some ways in which this article can be improved. To begin with, the introduction is not clear in its argument and direction. The author needs to come out and say what they are arguing. A direct thesis would be helpful. Beyond this, after the brief survey of literature on Indianos, the author does not say how their study adds to or modifies existing scholarship. Why is this study important? The reader does not get a clear sense of this in the introduction. And lastly, the reader is not given any signposts at the beginning, a brief overview of what is going to be covered in the article (how the argument is going to be proved).

 

A major concern of mine, as I read through the article, was the extent of primary source research performed. Most of the primary sources, beyond the sermon, were cited in other secondary works. Why is this? Why has the author not gone to the original sources? Beyond this, the reader needs some reflection on the primary sources used for this study. Is the Sermon important because it is the only published work we have on Our Lady of Sorrows, for example? Is the author doing work that others have not done? Have they uncovered any new sources? Or are they merely reinterpreting well-known primary sources. The reader does not get a sense of the documentation on this devotion, which is crucial in studies of images and their shrines.

 

Overall, the article lacks context on Marian devotion in the Spanish world. Starting with William Christian Jr. and William B. Taylor would be a good start. The reader needs to see the Lady of Sorrows as part of a larger network of images, specifically Marian ones, that were charted across Spain and its overseas possessions. The author needs to tell the reader a bit about the Virgin Mary, specifically devotional patterns to her in New Spain and Spain (including the Canary Islands).

 

Observations and Notes on Style

p. 1, line 22 = Why the sixteenth century and not the late fifteenth century? These flows began in the late 1400s.

 

p. 1, line 22 = Yes, people, materials, objects, and ideas flowed in the Atlantic. But I think it is always important to qualify this: some flows are voluntary while many others are not.

 

p. 1, line 25 = Your definition of Indiano needs to be expanded. As it stands right now, it can refer to any European merchant involved in trade. You need to highlight that these are primarily people of Spanish ancestry returning to the Canary Islands and the Iberian peninsula after striking it rich in the Indies.

 

p. 1, line 27 = Remove etc.

 

p. 1, line 28 = Consider changing “American origin” and “American colonies” to “Spanish American origin” and “colonies in Spanish America.” You are focusing on Spanish America (specifically New Spain) and the American colonies could be easily conflated with the Thirteen Colonies. There are several other examples throughout the article.

 

p. 1, line 30 = Cuba and parts of Mexico and Central America are part of the Caribbean basin. I would consider revising this list.

 

p. 1, line 31 = Which continent? This is not entirely clear from the way the sentence is worded.

 

p. 1, line 36 = The reader would appreciate some examples for purposes of comparison. What other images crossed the Atlantic and became rooted in the Canary Islands and the Iberian peninsula?

 

p. 2, line 38 = Avoid the passive voice: “they acquired in the Indies.” There are several other examples throughout the article.

 

p. 2, line 40 = This sentence does not make sense and needs rewording.

 

p. 2, line 42 = Switch archipelago for Canary Islands. You can use archipelago in line 44 instead.

 

p. 2, line 44 = Lorenzo Lima analyzed” instead of “Lorenzo Lima would analyze.” Overall, there are many cases in this article where the past tense should be used instead of the subjunctive or the future tense.

 

p. 2, line 46 = What does exchange of people in this context mean? I think you need to be clearer here as you make no reference to slavery in this article. Again, exchanges of people were voluntary and involuntary, and the involuntary flow – Indigenous, African, and Canarians – passed right through the Canary Islands. I understand that this article is not about slavery, but brief insertions into your narrative recognizing this offers a more accurate picture.

 

p. 2, line 49 = The quote needs to be set up; as it stands right now, it is simply sandwiched between two sentences.

 

p. 2, line 57 = Okay, but what have they concluded? What have they contributed to scholarship. The reader needs this context, albeit briefly.

 

p. 2, line 60 = What historical elements? Your references to the literature needs more substance so that the reader better understands how Indianos have been treated in the literature.

 

p. 3, line 62 = What does “fitting for hard work” mean?

 

p. 3, line 66 = Hidalgos were nobles; it would be better to say hidalgos and members of the upper nobility (those with titles).

 

p. 3, line 67 = Behaviour does not emulate; people emulate behaviours. Lead with the subject = Indianos.

 

p. 4, line 94 = Tenerife instead of island. The reader needs this context to stay on track.

 

p. 4, line 97 = The phrase “a woman of ancestry” needs to be qualified. All people are of “ancestry,” so you need to be more specific.

 

p. 4, line 100 = This is misleading as it appears as though Torres married Clara Magdalena twice.

 

p. 4, line 109 = Who is Cipriano de Arribas y Sánchez? The reader needs to know. It feels like you are turning to a primary source in the way that your narrative is flowing.

 

p. 5, line 118 = The reader needs a date for the “Tribute of Don Marcos Torres” and some more context about the document. You are citing it via a secondary source. Why?

 

p. 5, line 122 = Here you use New Spain whereas above you use Mexico. You need to establish a consistent way of referring to the viceroyalty in colonial times.

 

p. 5, line 123 = Avoid descriptors like “beautiful” as this is subjective. Give a description to your reader and let them decide on its beauty.

 

p. 5, line 130 = What is the “Virgin of Mexico”? It seems like you are talking about a new devotion.

 

p. 5, line 131 = “The owner” should be Torres here since you have started a new paragraph.

 

p. 7, line 179 = What does the “known world” refer to? Known to which people?

 

p. 7, line 180 = Revise “men” to “people.”

 

p. 8, line 200 = Who does the “we” refer to? How was the object “found”? Consider rephrasing.

 

p. 8, line 201 = The author needs to make the distinction between ex-votos and ex-voto paintings. In the widest sense of the term, an ex-voto is an object offered to the divinity with the goal of completing a promise made for some sort of favour. The practice is ancient, not restricted to Catholicism, and might include offerings such as metal or wax replicas of body parts (milagros), crutches, diplomas, toys, trophies, articles of clothing, or even photographs (in the present).

 

p. 9, lines 231-241 = The reader wants to know more about the meanings of crocodiles in New Spain, both from Indigenous and Spanish perspectives. This paragraph is general and does not address the specific context of New Spain.

 

p. 9, line 232 = Which Catholic churches? The author needs to be specific about geography and give a sense of what Padrino Barrera covered in their study (brief stats: i.e., how many churches did they sample?).

 

p. 9, line 240 = I do not understand what “the scholarly comes into close contact with the popular” means in this sentence.

 

p. 9, line 247 = A lot of work has been done on cabinets of curiosity. It seems to me that greater connections can be made here. More specifically, there was a drive to classify during the Enlightenment, so one wonders about the links between these types of objects in churches with others in cabinets in royal palaces. Museums began to appear in the eighteenth century as well, not too long after the arrival of Our Lady of Sorrows to Tenerife.

 

p. 10, line 260 = The reader needs more. Is this the only text we have? Or are there others? Several devotions have a range of sacred histories and sermons. If this is the only one, then you need to tell your reader.

 

p. 10, line 272 = The quote needs to be set up; as it stands right now, it is simply sandwiched between two sentences.

 

p. 10, line 276 = Get rid of “we.” You are the one studying the sermon.

 

p. 11, line 280 = Lead with the subject. Vergara, not the “Sermon”, announces.

 

p. 14, line 360 = The author says the chapel became the most important on the island, but some more context is helpful. Some shrines are multiethnic while others focus on one ethnicity; some are for “all” while others are geared towards a particular social class. What was the case here?

 

p. 14, line 362 = Who does “everyone” refer to here in this context? I am unclear.

 

p. 14, line 375 = Are the Canary Islands the “edges of the world”?

 

p. 14, line 379 = The questions should be asked at the beginning of the study. The conclusion is there to affirm that these questions have been answered. Of course, there is the option of future questions for study, but in this case, in theory, this “broader understanding” is something that you have dealt with in this article.

 

p. 14, lines 380-382 = This point should be highlighted earlier in the paper, specifically in the introduction. The Canary Islands form part of larger histories of the Atlantic world, but more so in the early stages as the Near Atlantic was the initial theatre of colonization before the Caribbean. As we move into the colonial period, the Canary Islands do not receive the same amount of attention. This is one way in which you can stress the importance of your study, but again, this needs to happen earlier.

 

p. 15, line 392 = Should read “the Virgin of Guadalupe.”

 

p. 15, line 394 = The quote needs to be set up; as it stands right now, it is simply sandwiched between two sentences.

 

p. 15, line 403 = What sacred map? The reader needs to understand this because there were “textual” cartographies of sacred images as much as there were visual representations.

 

Footnotes

f. 1 = I believe it should be “author of this article” instead of “translator of this article.”

 

f. 2 = What does “the latter” refer to in the third sentence? I was confused here. Also, the quotation needs to be set up better. The author is citing a primary source in a secondary source without telling the reader what that source is and when it was written.

 

f. 8 = Why is “Sermon” capitalized?

 

f. 10 = The phrase “that will house” should be “that would house.”

 

f. 11 = Consider rephrasing “that were not very good.”

 

f. 35 = Is the quotation necessary? This seems to be something the author can put into their own words.

 

f. 39 = Histories of the Spanish empire have moved beyond Atlantic world paradigms to more global focuses. There are brief ways in which you can show your consciousness of these trends but speaking to the Spanish Atlantic and Pacific (or Spanish world) before specifically focusing on the links between New Spain and the Canary Islands as your case study. My comments here are not just for this footnote but for the entire article.

 

f. 41 = The second sentence is incomplete and needs to be rephrased for greater clarity.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See my comments above.

Author Response

please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the new additions to this article, in this second phase of rewriting, there are quite a few of errors in the use of the English language in addition to some typos (scoop for scope, for example). It is important to review the new bibliographical entries as well since I see that there are mistakes in the spelling of several author´s names and titles of publications. I strongly urge the author and editors of the Journal to have it read and corrected for publication in English.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In the new additions to this article, in this second phase of rewriting, there are quite a few of errors in the use of the English language in addition to some typos. It is important to review the new bibliographical entries as well since I see that there are mistakes in the spelling of several author´s names. An example of a typo that caught my eye: "scoop" when meaning "scope". I strongly urge the author and editors of the Journal to have it read and corrected for publication in English.

Author Response

Thank you again for the meticulous reading of my work. An English native speaker reviewed my manuscript, and I was able to solve all style issues and typos. I highlighted most changes, but the typos and minor grammar problems.  

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is in much better shape now. I do not have any major comments, but I think the editors will need to work through several questions of style, some of which I have pointed out below. Several errors I point out there are duplicated in the footnotes.

 

I think it is important to highlight one of the comments from the author. They suggest that they “will not address the topic of slavery in this article, it has nothing to do with my argument.” First, the author did make some nods to the transatlantic slave trade, which is an important addition. But even if the argument does not focus on slavery, omitting the topic from our prose at strategic points is extremely troubling. The materials for shrines and their images in many cases were based on slave labour. Slavery was part of he exchanges taking place in the Atlantic world together with religious objects. Many colonial peoples did not mention these things because they were so normal (everyday) for them. We need to incorporate these things (questions of slavery) into our narratives of the colonial past even if they are not our focus because they offer a better picture of colonialism.

 

One last minor point. There are 46 references in the bibliography, 19 of which are books. In other words, most of the scholarship is from articles or book chapters. Why is this troubling? Well, in the case of their reference to William Taylor, it is surprising that they cite an earlier article on Guadalupe (which is good) instead of his larger monographic treatment Theatre of a Thousand Wonders.

 

Line 22 = fifteenth century instead 15^th century

 

Libe 27 = fifteenth-century instead of 15^th century (in this case it is an adjective and hence needs the dash)

 

Line 25 = The use of etc. should be purged.

 

Line 27 = You reference Iberian colonial powers. Why is this if you are only focusing on the Spanish world?

 

Line 31 = “As Hausberger ….”: This sentence makes no sense.

 

Line 34 = illustrate instead of illustrated

 

Line 43 = If you are referring to continental Europe, it would be better to state this than the European mainland.

 

Line 49 = “Canary Island iconographical studies” sounds awkward. Consider revising since the Canary Islands is an archipelago.

 

Line 50 = “Authors such as …” instead of “Authors as”.

 

Line 51 = “have studied” instead of “studied”

 

Line 50 = You mention several authors who have studied the Virgin of Sorrows but make no reference to their conclusions and how your interpretations build upon or challenges them.

 

Line 52 = The phrase “following the previous bibliography” seems to be referring to the work of the scholars in the previous sentence. If this is the case, this phrase will only confuse readers. It needs to be reworked.

 

Line 54 = I strongly suggest losing “we” in your prose. You are paying special attention, so lead with the personal pronoun “I”.

 

Line 59 = I would still advise against “American origin” given the connotations American has with the USA.

 

Line 62 = In this case, “were” should be “was” since trade is singular.

 

Line 66 = It should be sixteenth century instead of 16^th century.

 

Line 68 = Consider switching the places of people and goods so it reads “the exchange of goods and peoples across the Atlantic …” You follow with slaves, so it offers better flow in the sentence.

 

Line 69 = Yes, but one must not forget the Indigenous slave trade and the enslavement of Indigenous peoples to the Canary Islands.

 

Line 78 = This is a fuller description of the Indianos, but you might want to have an even clearer nod to them in line 38.

 

Line 79 = It should be Indies and not Indias.

 

Line 80 = It should be Canary Islands in the plural.

 

Line 82 = When you introduce the literature on a topic, you need to say not only what an author studied but their contribution. This does not have to be long, but one would like to know what Simerka and Mariscal discovered about the Indiano and how this is relevant to your study.

 

Line 85 = Avoid the passive voice.

 

Line 96 = I would avoid block quotes for secondary sources. Here you can put most, if not all of this quotation into your own words.

 

Line 104 = Consider revising: “Once they returned to the Canary Islands, these Indianos acted as donors and founded hermitages …”

 

Line 106 = Consider revising: “It was these Indianos …”

 

Line 106 = The sentence starting with “It will be …” is a tough sentence to get through. Consider revising.

 

Line 111 = I am not entirely sure what “reconcile imperial, religious, and economic interconnections” means.

 

Line 112 = Use the past tense here: They became a fair influence …. Also, “fair influence” is somewhat awkward. I would revise this expression.

 

Line 113 = Avoid etc. in your prose.

 

Line 114 = Should be “depended” instead of “will depend”.

 

Line 118 = “As I will demonstrate in this study” instead of “As we will see in this study”.

 

Line 129 = You use “countrymen,” but were there wealthy women as well?

 

Line 131 = You might want to be clearer as “transatlantic trade” might be read as the “transatlantic slave trade.” There were obvious connections between the two as it was difficult to separate any trading in the Atlantic world from slavery.

 

Line 134 = I would consider revising “American trade”.

 

Line 145 = Again, I would avoid inserting block quotes from secondary sources.

 

Line 162 = I would consider revising “American carvings”.

 

Line 165 = Torres should not be in the possessive (drop the apostrophe).

 

Line 191 = Revise: “The hermit would become …” Also, I think you mean hermitage and not hermit.

 

Line 197 = You use New Spain here and Mexico on line 199. I would be consistent throughout.

 

Line 201 = It should be “it is noted” and not “is it noted”.

 

Line 217 = In world history, historians argue for globalization in various periods, many of them well before the early modern period. I would change “early globalization” for “early modern globalization or something like this.

 

Line 218 = Revise “peope” for “people”.

 

Line 224 = I would use Americas and not America.

 

Line 229 = Should be “One way I propose to revise the past in this essay is by …”

 

Line 233 = Revise “will be one important agents …”

 

Line 236 = Need to revise “of the our image”. Awkward phrasing.

 

Line 243 = Again, I would revise “American origin”.

 

Line 258 = Again, I would avoid block quotes of secondary sources. You should do this more with your primary sources, your evidence for your arguments.

 

Line 268 = I would use “I” instead of “we”.

 

Line 270 = I would use “I” instead of “we”.

 

Line 323 = Revise “detaile” to “a detail that”.

 

Line 325 = I would use “I” instead of “we”.

 

Line 343 = Revise “there will be constant references” to avoid the passive voice.

 

Line 371 = I would revise “American lands”.

 

Line 379 = You are missing a colon. Also, I would set up the quote a litter better by referencing Vergara in the text.

 

Line 435 = What does “edges of the world” refer to?

 

Line 439 = I would use “I” and not “we”.

 

Line 441 = Consider: “regions of the Americas like”.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See my comments above.

Author Response

see attachment