Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate some good insights of this paper. The author has correctly remarked that Valerius Maximus excerpts have  been studied only tangentially. This is a major point which could deserve further inquiry. Another interesting point concerns the reasons of Carolingian authors for Suetonius.

Author Response

I appreciate some good insights of this paper. The author has correctly remarked that Valerius Maximus excerpts have  been studied only tangentially. This is a major point which could deserve further inquiry. Another interesting point concerns the reasons of Carolingian authors for Suetonius.

Response: Thanks for the positive comment. Pursuing the Valerius Maximus excerpts would require another paper. Indeed, all of the excerpting should be subjected to the type of analysis I attempted for the Suetonius excerpts. This work for another time and another scholar!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a nicely written paper about the reading and excerpting from Suetonius on the lives of the emperors made by Heiric of Auxerre. It is certainly worth publishing. There were just a couple of points where I thought some clarification might be useful. One is on p 4 “His Lupo, his Haimo ludebant,” suggests chronological stages of study, he first went from Auxerre to read with Lupus and then back to Auxerre to read with Haimo of Auxerre. It might be helpful to introduce Haimo of Auxerre, a prolific exegete very interested in scriptural history, integrated with Roman history. Perhaps he could be introduced around p 3, when Lupus and Heiric are first introduced. The paper also did not quite fully explained how widespread (or limited) was awareness of Suetonius in this period. A quick dip into the Library of Latin Texts reveals that Freculf of Lisieux knows Suetonius. He was a remarkable historian of the same generation as Haimo (with whom they share certain historical interests). I also have no idea if there are other Carolinian period MSS of Suetonius. I don’t think a huge amount of detail is needed, but perhaps just brief references to these small issues, just to polish what is already an excellent and useful paper.

Author Response

One is on p 4 “His Lupo, his Haimo ludebant,” suggests chronological stages of study, he first went from Auxerre to read with Lupus and then back to Auxerre to read with Haimo of Auxerre. It might be helpful to introduce Haimo of Auxerre, a prolific exegete very interested in scriptural history, integrated with Roman history. Perhaps he could be introduced around p 3, when Lupus and Heiric are first introduced. The paper also did not quite fully explained how widespread (or limited) was awareness of Suetonius in this period. A quick dip into the Library of Latin Texts reveals that Freculf of Lisieux knows Suetonius. He was a remarkable historian of the same generation as Haimo (with whom they share certain historical interests). I also have no idea if there are other Carolinian period MSS of Suetonius. I don’t think a huge amount of detail is needed, but perhaps just brief references to these small issues, just to polish what is already an excellent and useful paper.

Response: 

Good points. I added some background to Haimo on p. 4 and in note 21. As for awareness of Suetonius, see the beginning of Section 4, p. 5 and notes 33 and 34 where I have added some information.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Great work. The manuscript exemplifies meticulous research, top-level scholarship, and tedious and accessible writing. It makes a significant contribution to the scholarship and it has various implications in the field of intellectual history as well as world and European history. I highly recommend the article for publication without any changes. 

The article cites relevant and up-to-date sources. Thus, it represents command in the scholarship relevant to the article. I really enjoyed the accessibility of the writing. While it engages the specific characters, philosophers, and leaders of antiquity, it avoids oversaturation of jargon and remains accessible to readers from the different fields. 

The article is very well organized. The introduction and conclusion do a great job presenting the main topic and argument of the paper. The article flows in a logical way bringing the reader into the subject matter consistently throughout the paper. 

The paper's engagement with the primary source material is commendable. The presentation of original source excerpts at the end of the article provides an invaluable resource for the readers and future researchers. 

The articles engages with and thus contributes to a variety of fields including philosophy, intellectual history, world history and European history. It makes significant contributions in the field of English literature and textual analysis. 

In conclusion, I highly recommend this article for publication without any reservations with no required revisions. 

Author Response

Great work. The manuscript exemplifies meticulous research, top-level scholarship, and tedious and accessible writing. It makes a significant contribution to the scholarship and it has various implications in the field of intellectual history as well as world and European history. I highly recommend the article for publication without any changes. 

The article cites relevant and up-to-date sources. Thus, it represents command in the scholarship relevant to the article. I really enjoyed the accessibility of the writing. While it engages the specific characters, philosophers, and leaders of antiquity, it avoids oversaturation of jargon and remains accessible to readers from the different fields. 

The article is very well organized. The introduction and conclusion do a great job presenting the main topic and argument of the paper. The article flows in a logical way bringing the reader into the subject matter consistently throughout the paper. 

The paper's engagement with the primary source material is commendable. The presentation of original source excerpts at the end of the article provides an invaluable resource for the readers and future researchers. 

The articles engages with and thus contributes to a variety of fields including philosophy, intellectual history, world history and European history. It makes significant contributions in the field of English literature and textual analysis. 

In conclusion, I highly recommend this article for publication without any reservations with no required revisions. 

Response: Thank you for the encouraging review. Your reading of the essay is what I was aiming for.