Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The material presented in this article is very important and will make a significant contribution to Marian studies. The research is largely dependent on two classic collections of hymns from the late 19th and early 20th centuries and consists of a list of examples grouped by century of hymns in which Mary is named as "temple". The examples are presented with minimal introduction, making it difficult for the uninformed reader to appreciate why it is so extraordinary to have so many examples from across the full range of liturgical books for the West, but the examples themselves are very welcome and it will help our conversation to have them collected and translated here.

The author indicates that this piece is the third in a series of studies cataloguing the title in both the Eastern and Western traditions; as such, it is very important having the examples from the hymns to demonstrate that the theme was standard, wide-spread, well-known, and nuanced. For a stand-alone article, however, too much of this background is simply assumed. Why does it matter so much that Mary is called temple? This is a theme that has been vigorously argued in the current Marian scholarship, particularly following on Margaret Barker's studies of the Lady of the Temple. The bibliography in the present article focuses almost entirely on the art historical literature, giving no indication of this Mariological debate. If the previous articles have touched on the Marian scholarship, it would help for this to be indicated more clearly in the introduction to the survey of hymns.

The article will be extremely useful to those of us arguing for the centrality of this imagery in medieval Marian devotion, oddly obscured in recent scholarship, much as in the art historical literature cited on p. 49. The translations are elegant and exact, and the range of examples is refreshing. The selections of examples of late medieval painting are persuasive, but simply as a sampling—there must be dozens more such paintings, surely. If these are the only nine that were found, this should be mentioned (I think it unlikely, given how clearly Mary was seen as the place for the presence of God).

My main suggestion for revision is to make clearer the stakes in the argument—why was it so necessary to compile these examples so exhaustively? What are the barriers in the current scholarship to seeing Mary clearly as the templum Dei? Who will be surprised to be hit with such a wealth of examples? I don't think it is news that the painters drew on the hymnography—I am thinking in particular of recent work on the Franciscan devotion to Mary published in the collection edited by Stephen J. McMichael and Katherine Wrisley Shelby (Brill, 2019)—so it is interesting to learn that the art historical scholarship has not drawn on this theme. Certainly, Lesley Twomey has pointed to the theme in her studies of Marian images in the Spanish tradition.

Some sense of this ongoing discussion will help orient readers to appreciate and delight in the range of examples found in the hymns and the significance of the representation of Mary as temple in the paintings.

Small corrections:

p. 2] Honorius of Autun is known now to have been Honorius of Regensberg. Better to cite him as Honorius Augustodunensis. 

pp. 41-42] The repetition of Ulrich Stöchlins von Rottach's full name is unnecessary; it only needs giving once; after that use a short version.

Author Response

See the enclosed PDF. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This long article consists mostly of primary documents, excerpts from hymns and pictures of the Annunciation. It is worth publishing for making available materials related to the idea of Mary as the “Temple of God.” There is not much in the piece that involves significant analysis or interpretation. Nonetheless, it accomplishes the noteworthy service of pointing out that the theme does exist and that it involves a set of labels with a family resemblance to the notion of Mary as Templum Dei. The article also offers brief explanations of how the included pictures qualify as depicting a temple scene.

            As it stands at the moment, the article is in need of some revision to correct spelling errors and errors in phrasing/idiom. I have made a list of the errors or questionable phrasing that I noticed. It is in no way meant to be an exhaustive list. I give the references by line number:

 

…of the Eastern … 35

…a countless corpus 62–63

…precedent n4 (preceding is meant). N4 also seems inaccurate in connection with the text it serves as a footnote. 89

…imploration to 80

…the referred metaphors 96

…since 1438 509

…Hymnus 41…sing 545

…in fanciful way 561

…star-shaped? 570 (is “star-studded” meant?)

…form of a nave? 581

…repeated use of a stock phrase to reinforce a not very analytical claim: eg “it seems reasonable…” 597

…the commentators we know about this painting 615

…it does matter 635

…reaches 639

…weak phrasing: eg “wanted likely” 660

…reveils 721

…moher 721

“In the first block …” (syntax) 728–33.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some question of control of idiom. See the list above.

Author Response

Please see the enclosed PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf