Charisma and Memory in a Spiritual Community: The Case of Damanhur in Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This was an exceedingly difficult piece to review. On the one hand, it presents an interesting case study and the third section works well and is interesting and persuasive.  On the other hand, section two needs to be substantially restructured.  There are two main issues:  1) The Darmanhur community and the story of Airaudi need to be presented earlier in the article. It's only in the third section that we hear more concrete details; 2) the second issue is the most crucial and concerns the second section.  The reader gets a lot of Weber but this is not pulled through very clearly.  It is also unclear how the second section of the article relates to the third.  

My suggestions for revision are: 1) put more general information about Darmanhur in the Introduction.  Also state clearly how the second section is related to the third; 2) have a clearer introductory paragraph for the second section that states clearly how Weber helps us to understand Airaudi and why this is important.  After the introductory paragraph there should be a fuller introduction to Airaudi, then Weber, then an clear discussion of how Weberian themes help us to understand Airaudi and the importance of memory.

I really liked the third section. It is clear, well organized, and well argued. I am just unclear about the second section and why that section is necessary before the third.  The authors should be encouraged that the research is interesting and relevant.  The third section works well.  The second section does need to be revised for publication which is why I am recommending a major revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting.

1.It is worth rethinking the title, which does not fully reflect the content contained in it.

2.According to the reviewer, there are paragraphs in the text where there is not even a single footnote, and the content in them requires it. See, for example, the first paragraph, and also the references are not always well placed, even in the introduction.  Note the footnote-free content in the third paragraph.

3.According to the reviewer, in scientific texts should be written in impersonal form. The phrase in point three needs to be clarified: "I do not deny that Airaudi was ........."; "I cannot dwell on the esoteric significance......". "In conclusion: I have sought to posit that......".

4.The reviewer is not convinced that quite old texts should be cited, e.g. Assmann, 1997.

 

Author Response

Please see the file attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx