You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • María Jesús Soto-Bruna

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Marián Ambrozy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article tries to show that a common feature regarding creation can be found in three authors (Eriugena, Hildegard of Bingen, Eckhart): the explanation of the origin of the world as manifestation of the first principle and the final return to it. The paper is well written and the topic of interest. Addressing a few minor issues would further improve the clarity and applicability of the manuscript.

(1) Given the broad readership of the journal an additional few sentences at the start of the manuscript (In Introduction) addressing why this topic is important and what is new about it compared to existing literature could be helpful.

(2) Several sentences and phrases in Latin should be translated into English. It cannot be assumed that all readers of Religions know Latin well. The following phrases require translation into English:

p. 3, line 104 - natura creata et creans

p. 3, line 116 - per metaphoram a creatura ad creatorem

p. 3, line 130 - aeterna conditio rerum in Verbo Dei

p. 6, line 301 - Qui est imago Dei invisibilis, primogenitus omnis creaturae

p. 7, line 338-339 - In principio creavit deus caelum et terram

p. 7, line 340 - secundo quod ‘creavit in principio’, id est in se ipso

p. 7, line 350-351 - extra ipsum vero esse nihil esse potest

p. 8, line 371 - Creatio est collatio esse

(3) The following phrase requires additional commentary (p. 8, line 412-415): ‘From this conception, the being of the created is a divine ‘mode’ of being. This affirmation does not lead, in Eckhart, to a – rather Spinozist – claim of univocity with regard to the notion of being; but it solves the question of the God-creature relation in absolute unity; where differences are not cancelled in the Hegelian mode.’ It is not clear why the author refers to Spinoza and Hegel. This shortcut should be expanded.

(4) Minor suggestion: the point 'Hildegard von Bingen. God-Mirror' (pp. 3-7) contains many quotations. It seems that at least some of them can be paraphrased.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions.

  1. I have pointed out current authors who are close to the theme of my research.
  2. Thank you, but I do not consider it opportune to translate the authors own Latin expressions, which are known to everybody who as certain knowledge of Philosohy.
  3. Corrected page 8, relating to Eckhart.
  4. The current discussion and the methodology of the work have been explained.
  5. References have been added.
  6. The results have been clearly stated.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Interesting paper.  It has a good overall thesis and finds an underappreciated niche in these three thinkers.  

The main concern I have is twofold: 1. the argument is insufficiently argumentative 2. the sources are not current with only a few exceptions; English language sources are lacking; the sources are not sufficiently specific to the topic addressed in the paper.  

To address the first problem requires more reading and citation in the second.  As it stands, the paper presents the understanding of creation as found in those three thinkers.  But without reference to additional scholarship, it is not clear whether this is a meaningful contribution to the scholarship.  Does everyone get these viewpoints wrong?  Are you correcting some mistaken approach to these thinkers?  Has no one ever written on this topic?  If no one has ever written on this topic, why is it important?  

Just as an example, Willemien Otten's 2020 Thinking Nature and the Nature of Thinking: from Eriugena to Emerson is certainly relevant.  

Margot Fassler's 

Cosmos, liturgy, and the arts in the twelfth century : Hildegard's illuminated "Scivias"

...just came out, and is certainly relevant.  As is Michael Marder's "Green Mass: The Ecological Theology of Hildegard of Bingen"  The Brill Companion to Eckhart also has a couple of chapters on creation and thinking. Not to mention all of the articles on the topic which one can find.   I recommend that the author engage with contemporary research and rewrite the paper to provide a 1. more precise, and targeted thesis which demonstrates awareness of what is happening in scholarship on the topic and places their argument in relation to the argument of others.  2. a more thorough and up to date analysis of the figures, especially in relation to notions of thinking and signification (the author is aware of the apophatic strategies of each thinker, but does not sufficiently emphasize them, especially in regard to the implications for notions like "thinking")

Another revision for grammar and language may be helpful, but the paper is generally good.  

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions.

  1. I have explained the context of contemporary thought on the philosophical subject.
  2. I have added more references and studies.
  3. I have clarified the working hypotheses, as well as the results and the contribution of the work to contemporary thought

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of the study is remarkable, unusual. The study is philosophical in nature. Formal signs: I consider the abstract to be brief. It would be appropriate to expand it. There is a sufficient number of keywords. They adequately represent the key themes of the study. The study essentially lacks a list of literature. A certain formal standard simply has to be maintained in a quarantined journal in the Q1 quartile. A study without a bibliography is a flagrant violation of formal bibliographic standards. In addition, the bibliographic list seems to me to be too brief, it is necessary to add some more bibliographic sources. The length of the study is standard, the study is not too short.

Content: The division of the study is clear. We see no flaws here. In the introduction, the authors define their goals well. In essence, the work consists of sub-chapters connected by a central theme. It is sympathetic that the authors devote themselves to Eriugen, Hegel IX. century. They discuss his specific neoplatonist dialectic. They very nicely analyze the dialectic question of the fullness of being versus nothingness. Hildegard von Bingen developed her mirror metaphor in an intuitive way. We think that the authors captured the essence of this metaphorical elaboration in Hildegard von Bingen. The authors sometimes outline its ideological historical parallels, e.g. with Areopagite. The authors discuss the role of numbers, words and of course the mirror in Hildegard. The authors also pay attention to the anthropological dimension of the problems interpreted by Hildegard. Another author whose ideas are discussed in the study is Eckhart. The authors deal with metaphysics and questions of theologia naturalis in the elaboration of Eckhart.

The conclusion is apt. It is reasonably long.

Disadvantages: In addition to the already listed formal deficiencies, the authors would be requested to make a sub-chapter in which they would compare the researched topics among the authors that they prioritized.

Result: The authors should make major changes along the lines of my recommendations.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions and evaluation of the article.

I have followed your recommendations.1. I have expanded the abstract, including the contemporary discussion and the train of thought that I follow.

  1. In the text, I have considered the current discussion.
  2. I have added at the end the relevance of the results achieved.
  3. I have added more contemporary bibliographical references.
  4. I have taken into account the suggestions about Eckhart.
  5. I have added sub sections in the text..
  6. I have included a bibliography at the end.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I'm not sure if I received the correct version of the revision, but there was not much changed.  There are two new paragraphs in the introduction in Spanish, which I assume would be changed(?).  

Otten and Marder are referenced, but not quoted from or discussed in detail.  There is one other sentence which appears to have been added in the body of the text and one sentence added to the conclusion.  These are entirely superficial edits which add no substance to the paper, and somewhat detract from it.  In encouraging you to read those sources, I was not asking you just to pretend to engage with them by putting them in the bibliography and saying "my scholarship is in alignment with them," but to actually summarize their arguments on this topic--and not just using the sources I suggested either.  There is a lot of scholarship on this topic.  Why don't you want to engage with it?  

I received a draft with two paragraphs in Spanish.  My Spanish isn't great, but the treatment of the scholars in those paragraphs is too superficial to be beneficial for the paper.  

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions.

I have reviewed the books by Otten and Marder, which I now quote in the article. I have pointed out some theses in which I agree with them, and also some discrepancies.

Moreover, I have added some references and comments about the three thinkers that I analyze in my article, in accordance with the argumentative line of the same. In this article, my approach has been to connect Eriugena, Hildegard and Eckhart by focusing on the dynamics of the religious vocabulary about creation, in the metaphysical context in which creation is principally explained as manifestation.

I recognize, as you say, that there is a great deal of scholarship on the subject. I have added some references that I have studied largely in detail.

Thanks again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

It is necessary to translate the text written in a language other than English into English.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for the revisions.

Typos I noticed in lines 253 and 432.  I'd also recommend explaining the final quote from Otten in more detail, as it introduces a nuanced argument.  

It's fine.