Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read the article with great interest as i did not know neither or them, St Publius of Malta and Father Pelagius;

The article is interesting as it deals with different parts of the lives of both St Publius and Father Pelagio. What i particularly like is the fact that both lives are intertwined in the text and one can shift from one to the other seeing how Father Pelagio described St Publius; I think the article is clear and shows a good understanding and knowledge of the topic under investigation; the language is almost always clear and the article is almost always properly and correctly referenced.

I have however some notes for the author: I  liked the description of the fist/second/third edition but i am not sure how these details contributed further to the understanding of the book/story, did we have some clear differences between the editions? if yes, they must be explained to the readers if no it is sufficient to say that the book used is the third edition.

There are some footnotes, i.e 5-8-9 etc which are in Italian, (i can read and understand it), if the author considers them important for the comprehension of the text,-apart from the paraphrasis in the main text- they need a translation in English in the footnotes in my opinion. Those notes which are simply mentioned to support the text did not need a translation.

I would have liked a bit more explanation of the patriotic literature, some examples of it and what it really is what it deals with etc, and i would have liked to see some more classical sources, back to the time of St Publius, external to the book itself which talked, described, mentioned St Publius, this could set the scene in context and reinforce what has been said in the article, which is, by the way, good.

Finally i would describe or support the description of the art(s) referring to St Publius (lines 160-180 and following lines) with a more general art texts in relation to early Christian art and the evolution of Christian art in the centuries; there are many books, however, a good scholar in my opinion is Lord Richard Harries.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language seems fine to me, although i would suggest a second reading from a professional reader, native speaker in English language, although I have detected very few mistakes/errors.

Author Response

 

 

 I  liked the description of the fist/second/third edition but i am not sure how these details contributed further to the understanding of the book/story, did we have some clear differences between the editions? if yes, they must be explained to the readers if no it is sufficient to say that the book used is the third edition.

1. Please note that, due to the significance of the book of St Publius for the present article, I felt it necessary to include some details about the three different editions. Specifically, they were not all printed in Malta – an important aspect of local Maltese history during the time of the Knights of Malta – and the loss of each edition. I have also observed that the title of the book varies across the editions. Therefore, I suggest retaining the section on the history of the book’s printing, even though I will be using the third edition.

There are some footnotes, i.e 5-8-9 etc which are in Italian, (i can read and understand it), if the author considers them important for the comprehension of the text,-apart from the paraphrasis in the main text- they need a translation in English in the footnotes in my opinion. Those notes which are simply mentioned to support the text did not need a translation.

1. I have omitted the footnotes containing the original Italian quotations from Padre Pelagio’s book, retaining only the references. I have kept the quotations for which I prove an English translation.

I would have liked a bit more explanation of the patriotic literature, some examples of it and what it really is what it deals with etc, and i would have liked to see some more classical sources, back to the time of St Publius, external to the book itself which talked, described, mentioned St Publius, this could set the scene in context and reinforce what has been said in the article, which is, by the way, good.

In reference to classical sources dating back to the time of St Publius, I have clarified that none exist. However, I have included material on other sources that predate Padre Pelagio’s writing on St Publius to demonstrate that this movement began before his time. Specifically, I referenced Manduca’s work and a poem that goes back to the 16^th The additions are marked in red in the text.

Finally i would describe or support the description of the art(s) referring to St Publius (lines 160-180 and following lines) with a more general art texts in relation to early Christian art and the evolution of Christian art in the centuries; there are many books, however, a good scholar in my opinion is Lord Richard Harries.  

I have added additional material – highlighted in red – to support the description of the arts in relation to St Publius, alongside a more general discussion of Christian art, specifically referencing the works of Richard Harries.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language seems fine to me, although i would suggest a second reading from a professional reader, native speaker in English language, although I have detected very few mistakes/errors.

Kindly note that I have refined the English idiom in the text with the assistance of a profession reader.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article introduces a highly interesting topic, namely the significance of the cult of St Publius as presented by the eighteenth century scholar Bartolomeo Mifsud, better known as Padre Pelagio, for Maltese nation building and the construction of Maltese national identity. The article reflects a profound knowledge of the historical subject matter and a thorough engagement with the source material, especially the central source of Padre Pelagio's work on St Publius. These are the article's strengths.

The article's main weakness is that it does not - explicitly at least - do what it promises in the introduction and the abstract, namely "show how Padre Pelagio’s writings on St Publius are an affirmation of those characteristics which, according to him, identify Malta as a distinct nation, with its own history, beliefs, traditions, and language." To attain these goals, the article's text is way too descriptive and it's thesis way too implicit.

It is, in the opinion of the present reviewer, necessary to explicitly and in more detail explain how the historical material - which is of course also interesting in its own right - supports the thesis stated at the article's beginning. How exactly does the otherwise meticulous and detailed source analysis reflect Maltese nation building and the construction of Maltese national identity? In this regard, the reader is by and large left in the dark, apart from a short concluding comment in the end. One way to improve this would be to explain how the article's individual sections stand (on the engraving, the printed editions, the text Padre Pelagio's book, the miracles) are supposed to build up a coherent argument. 

Also necessary is to embed the article more thoroughly in previous research done on the relationship between religion and nation building. Recent decades have seen much work done on processes of nation building in the early modern and modern periods and the article would do well in bringing in such research (e.g. the work of Joep Leerssen, just to name an obvious example). In its present form, the article's use of secondary source material is too strongly concentrated sources related to local Maltese topics (which is of course necessary but a broader angle is needed as well).

On style and formalities the following: In general, while the English language is more or less OK, the text's style could be improved to be more accessible and less report-like. I name as an example that many paragraphs in a row have "Padre Pelagio" as the acting subject (writing, adding, continuing etc.), see pp. 5-7. A more diverse paragraph structure would be wished for. 

Author Response

 

The article's main weakness is that it does not - explicitly at least - do what it promises in the introduction and the abstract, namely "show how Padre Pelagio’s writings on St Publius are an affirmation of those characteristics which, according to him, identify Malta as a distinct nation, with its own history, beliefs, traditions, and language." To attain these goals, the article's text is way too descriptive and it's thesis way too implicit.

It is, in the opinion of the present reviewer, necessary to explicitly and in more detail explain how the historical material - which is of course also interesting in its own right - supports the thesis stated at the article's beginning. How exactly does the otherwise meticulous and detailed source analysis reflect Maltese nation building and the construction of Maltese national identity? In this regard, the reader is by and large left in the dark, apart from a short concluding comment in the end. One way to improve this would be to explain how the article's individual sections stand (on the engraving, the printed editions, the text Padre Pelagio's book, the miracles) are supposed to build up a coherent argument. 

Kindly note that, in light of your comment regarding the need to explicitly and more thoroughly explain how the historical material supports the thesis presented at the beginning of the article, I have added further material at the end of each section (marked in red) to strengthen my analysis of Maltese nation-building and the construction of Maltese national identity.

 

 

Also necessary is to embed the article more thoroughly in previous research done on the relationship between religion and nation building. Recent decades have seen much work done on processes of nation building in the early modern and modern periods and the article would do well in bringing in such research (e.g. the work of Joep Leerssen, just to name an obvious example). In its present form, the article's use of secondary source material is too strongly concentrated sources related to local Maltese topics (which is of course necessary but a broader angle is needed as well).

Please note that I have also included references to Joep Leerssen to situation Padre Pelagio’s arguments within a broader context.

On style and formalities the following: In general, while the English language is more or less OK, the text's style could be improved to be more accessible and less report-like. I name as an example that many paragraphs in a row have "Padre Pelagio" as the acting subject (writing, adding, continuing etc.), see pp. 5-7. A more diverse paragraph structure would be wished for. 

Please note that I have also enhanced the text’s style to make it more accessible and less formal. The new phrases are highlighted in red, while the original ones remain in yellow to assist the reviewer in identifying the changes.

Kindly note that the final article, as it stands, is an edited version incorporating changes proposed by other reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a thorough examination of St. Publius' worship as documented in some eighteenth century sources. Primary literature is well mastered, as is secondary bibliography. Therefore I think the paper is worth being published, also because it presents a less known figure in the history of Maltese Church. What I miss, however, is the link between the specific paper and the general topic of the monographic number, which I would explain more clearly. 

Author Response

What I miss, however, is the link between the specific paper and the general topic of the monographic number, which I would explain more clearly. 

 

In response to your comment suggesting a clearer link between the specific paper and the general theme of the monographic issue, please note that I have added a brief paragraph at the end of the introduction to highlight how the topic under investigation relates to the overarching theme of the issue, which is dedicated to Church History.

Kindly note that the final article, as it stands, is an edited version incorporating changes proposed by other reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Obviously, this article has been massively improved. My only comment relates to the application of Joep Leerssen's ideas to the case of Padre Pelagio. I find it somewhat peculiar that the research subject under analysis is presented on an equal platform, as it were, as a 21st century scholar. Obviously, their writings are of completely different nature and Padre Pelagio is part of the source material which is being analysed in view of Leersen's ideas and not his 'discussion partner' (lines 375-424), as the text in its present form might seem to imply. This is, however, mostly a matter of framing and should be easy to fix.

Author Response

NOTE TO THE SECOND PEER-REVIEWER

 

I have considered your valuable comments and have made the necessary revisions accordingly. New material has been incorporated and highlighted in red, further elaborating on why Padre Pelagio should not be construed as theoretical interlocutor with Leerssen. I hope these changes meet your expectations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf