Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is an enjoyable read and provides a good synthesis of the relationship between Plato and the Orphic theory, which dualistically contrasts the body and soul. The author addresses topics that have already been covered in existing literature, focusing on specific themes. These include the tripartite division of the soul in Plato, where thymos plays a key role, allowing it to overcome the Orphic body-soul dichotomy, and Plato's relationship with mythos and logos. Overall, the article offers a clear summary of complex issues that is particularly useful for those new to the Orphic-Platonic theme, and this appears to be the main value of the contribution.

However, as a classical scholar, I must highlight a serious error and several critical issues.

A Major Error

The text contains a serious and embarrassing misunderstanding in the sentence at lines 196-197: "The notion of the soul’s reincarnation also appears in the philosophical commentaries of figures such as Proclus and Herodotus," which is justified in footnote 5. I must point out that there is no commentator on Plato named Herodotus. Herodotus was a historian from the 5th century B.C. who discusses metempsychosis in Hist. II.123. This error suggests that the author has not read the primary sources firsthand and is confusing citations of ancient authors reported by others.

Outdated and Incorrect Referencing

• Given the importance of Orphism in the article, the choice to use the old and outdated 1922 edition by O. Kern as a reference (see footnote 2, lines 707-710 and all citations of OF/OT) is unjustifiable. Instead, the author should have used the authoritative and updated edition by Albertus Bernabé, Poetarum epicorum Graecorum: testimonia et fragmenta, Vols. 2/I-II. Orphicorum et orphicis similium testimonia et fragmenta, Vol. 2/III. Musaeus, Linus, Epimenides, Papyrus Derueni, Indices (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1987-2007).
• The author cites some ancient sources—fortunately not all—in a way that is unacceptable for the classical scholarly community. While passages from the Iliad are correctly cited by book and verse number, and Platonic passages follow the conventional Stephanus pagination system based on the 16th-century edition by Henri Estienne, other citations are incorrect. For example, at lines 144-145, the author cites Ovid by referring to the pages of a modern 1955 edition ("Ovid, 1955, pp. 235-236") instead of the specific verses of the Metamorphoses. This error is repeated for passages from Plutarch (line 157), Olympiodorus (lines 459-60), and Philodemus (footnote 4, lines 715-716).

Terminology and Bibliography

• The term thymos is consistently translated generically as 'spirit'. However, given the importance the author attributes to this term, it would be useful for the reader to understand precisely what the author means by 'spirit,' as the word is polysemantic.
• The bibliography is very limited for topics that have an extensive body of scholarly literature. This literature, whether one agrees with it or not, deserves to be considered in a critical study. The author is advised to conduct research using the Année Philologique catalogue with relevant keywords.
• The author cites J.K. Feibleman's work by referring to the 2013 reprint. It would be more accurate to reference the date of the first edition from 1979, which was a landmark publication. This original edition also attracted very negative reviews that questioned its authority, which the author seems to have overlooked.

Minor Errors

• At line 467, there is an error in the Greek accent: the grave accent should be an acute one, so the text should read ὁδός, not ὁδὸς.
• In footnote 7, line 724, Phaedo should be in italics.
• Iliad is not in italics at line 94.
• At lines 272-73, Sessini 2024 is cited, but the author has forgotten to include this work in the bibliography.

Additional Bibliographical References

Here are some additional bibliographical references (without claiming to be exhaustive):

The Opposition of Psychè – Soma

• Robinson, Thomas More. "The defining features of mind-body dualism in the writings of Plato." In Psyche and soma: physicians and metaphysicians on the mind-body problem from Antiquity to Enlightenment, edited by John P. Wright and Paul Potter, 37-55. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Pr., 2000.

Logos–Mythos

• Luchetti, Claudia. "Das Wesen der Seele zwischen «logos» und «mythos»: Unsterblichkeit, Ideentheorie und Selbsterkenntnis im Licht des Schönen-Guten in Platons Phaidros 245 b 1 – 251 b 7." Perspektiven der Philosophie 49 (2023): 163-170. Doi: 10.1163/9789004686052008.
• Macías, Julián. "La asociación entre «mythos» y «logos» en el «Fedón», o sobre cómo alcanzar el «logos» más difícil de refutar." Archai, no. 32 (2022): non paginé. Doi: 10.14195/1984-249X3212.

Plato–Orphism

• Casadesús Bordoy, Francesc. "Orfismo: usos y abusos." In «Koinòs lógos»: homenaje al profesor José García López, edited by Esteban Calderón Dorda, Alicia Morales Ortiz, and Mariano Valverde Sánchez, 155-163. Murcia: Ed. de la Universidad de Murcia, 2006.
• Dyson, G. W. "Orphism and the platonic philosophy." In Speculum religionis, being essays and studies in religion and literature from Plato to von Hügel presented by members of the staff of University College, Southampton, to their president C. G. Montefiore. Oxford: Clarendon Pr., 1929.

Thymos in Plato

• Scott, Simon. "Loving and living well: the importance of shame in Plato’s «Phaedrus»." In Emotions in Plato, edited by Laura Candiotto and Olivier Renaut. Brill’s Plato Studies Series; 4, 270-284. Leiden; Boston (Mass.): Brill, 2020.
• Wilburn, Josh. The political soul: Plato on thumos, spirited motivation, and the city. Oxford: Oxford University Pr., 2021.

In the bibliography, the name Coxon (Linn. 778-79) is out of alphabetical order. According to bibliographic conventions for studies dealing with classical texts, it is better to cite ancient authors in alphabetical order in a dedicated section, with references to the relevant editions. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, the article appears publishable on the condition that: 1) the errors are corrected and the system for citing ancient texts is brought into line with scientific conventions, and 2) the reading of the bibliography is more critically developed without sacrificing the pleasantness and clarity of the writing.

 

Author Response

1. Summary

   Thank you for your kind and thoughtful feedback on our article. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted manuscript. We greatly appreciate your positive comments on the synthesis of the relationship between Plato and Orphism, particularly with regard to the body-soul dualism and the role of thymos in overcoming this dichotomy. We are pleased to hear that the article serves as a clear and useful summary of these complex themes, especially for those new to the Orphic-Platonic discourse. In response to your suggestions, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript and made the necessary corrections. The errors have been addressed, and we have ensured that the system for citing ancient texts is now fully aligned with scientific conventions. Additionally, we have revised the bibliography to more critically engage with existing literature, incorporating a broader range of sources while maintaining the clarity and readability of the writing. Once again, thank you for your constructive feedback. We hope the revisions made have sufficiently addressed your concerns.

   2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions

   Comments 1: A Major Error The text contains a serious and embarrassing misunderstanding in the sentence at lines 196-197: “The notion of the soul’s reincarnation also appears in the philosophical commentaries of figures such as Proclus and Herodotus,” which is justified in footnote 5. I must point out that there is no commentator on Plato named Herodotus. Herodotus was a historian from the 5th century B.C. who discusses metempsychosis in Hist. II.123. This error suggests that the author has not read the primary sources firsthand and is confusing citations of ancient authors reported by others.

   Response 1: Thank you very much for your insightful feedback. We sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding in the sentence regarding Herodotus. The intention was to reference Herodotus' account of reincarnation in his Histories (2.123), where he attributes certain Greek ideas, including the concept of reincarnation, to the ancient Egyptians. We mistakenly presented this without sufficient clarification, which resulted in the misunderstanding. In the revised manuscript, we have corrected this issue to clarify that Herodotus’ statement is not related to philosophical commentaries on Plato but rather to his historical analysis. The revised text now reads (on Page [5], Line [215-218]): "The notion of the soul’s reincarnation also appears in in the philosophical commentaries of Proclus.5 Herodotus, who tends to attribute Orphic practices and doctrines to the ancient Egyptians in the Histories (2.123 = OF 423), asserts that certain Greeks—both earlier and later, adopted the theory of reincarnation."

   Comments 2: Outdated and Incorrect Referencing Given the importance of Orphism in the article, the choice to use the old and outdated 1922 edition by O. Kern as a reference (see footnote 2, lines 707-710 and all citations of OF/OT) is unjustifiable. Instead, the author should have used the authoritative and updated edition by Albertus Bernabé, Poetarum epicorum Graecorum: testimonia et fragmenta, Vols. 2/I-II. Orphicorum et orphicis similium testimonia et fragmenta, Vol. 2/III. Musaeus, Linus, Epimenides, Papyrus Derueni, Indices (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1987-2007).  Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the use of Orphic texts. In response, we have replaced Kern’s edition with Bernabé's Teubner edition (Orphicorum et Orphicis Similium fragmenta, 2004-2007) in both the notes and the reference list, and all relevant citations have been updated accordingly. As for the Derveni Papyrus, we have referenced the first complete edition by Kouremenos, Parássoglou, and Tsantsanoglou (The Derveni Papyrus, Studi e testi per il Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini, 2006). Comments 3: Outdated and Incorrect Referencing The author cites some ancient sources—fortunately not all—in a way that is unacceptable for the classical scholarly community. While passages from the Iliad are correctly cited by book and verse number, and Platonic passages follow the conventional Stephanus pagination system based on the 16th-century edition by Henri Estienne, other citations are incorrect. For example, at lines 144-145, the author cites Ovid by referring to the pages of a modern 1955 edition (“Ovid, 1955, pp. 235-236”) instead of the specific verses of the Metamorphoses. This error is repeated for passages from Plutarch (line 157), Olympiodorus (lines 459-60), and Philodemus (footnote 4, lines 715-716).

   Response 3: Thank you for your thoughtful comments on the citations in the manuscript. In response to your concerns, we have carefully revised the manuscript to correct the citations of ancient texts. Specifically, we have replaced the page numbers with the correct book and verse numbers for Ovid’s Metamorphoses, as well as for the passages from Plutarch, Olympiodorus, Philodemus, Euripides, and Damascius. All relevant citations have now been updated to align with classical scholarly standards. Comments 4: Terminology and Bibliography The term thymos is consistently translated generically as ‘spirit’. However, given the importance the author attributes to this term, it would be useful for the reader to understand precisely what the author means by ‘spirit,’ as the word is poly semantic. Response 4: Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the term “thymos” and its translation as “spirit.” In response to your feedback, we have added a paragraph in Section 4.2, where we specifically address the multiple meanings of “spirit” within Plato’s dialogues. We have also incorporated relevant interpretations to further elucidate the term. As discussed, “thymos” is often associated with emotions such as anger, competitive passion, and the desire for self-affirmation. It embodies an undirected impulse and emotional drive within the soul, which plays a key role in human behavior and motivation. Comments 5: Terminology and Bibliography ·The bibliography is very limited for topics that have an extensive body of scholarly literature. This literature, whether one agrees with it or not, deserves to be considered in a critical study. The author is advised to conduct research using the Année Philologique catalogue with relevant keywords. Response 5: Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the bibliography. We appreciate your comment about the need to incorporate a broader range of scholarly literature, especially given the extensive body of work on this topic. In response, we have conducted further research using the Année Philologique catalogue with relevant keywords, and we have now expanded the reference list to include more diverse and critical perspectives. We believe these additions enhance the depth and rigor of the study, and hope they address your concern. Comments 6: Terminology and Bibliography The author cites J.K. Feibleman’s work by referring to the 2013 reprint. It would be more accurate to reference the date of the first edition from 1979, which was a landmark publication. This original edition also attracted very negative reviews that questioned its authority, which the author seems to have overlooked. Response 6: Thank you very much for your insightful comment regarding the citation of J. K. Feibleman’s work. We have revised the reference to cite the first edition from 1979, as you suggested, and have also reviewed some of the negative critiques of this original edition. Specifically, the citation (Feibleman, 1979, p. 58) refers to the fact that at least fifteen direct references to Orphic teachings can be found in Plato’s works. Comments 7: Minor Errors At line 467, there is an error in the Greek accent: the grave accent should be an acute one, so the text should read ὁδός, not ὁδὸς.  ·In footnote 7, line 724, Phaedo should be in italics. ·Iliad is not in italics at line 94.  ·At lines 272-73, Sessini 2024 is cited, but the author has forgotten to include this work in the bibliography.  Response 7:  Thank you for your helpful comments. We have made the necessary revisions in the manuscript: 1. The Greek accent issue has been corrected to ὁδός, as per your suggestion. Please refer to the updated manuscript, page 11, line 504. 2. Footnote 7, line 779: Phaedo has been italicized. 3. The italicization of Iliad has been corrected (see page 3, line 103). 4. The citation for Sessini 2024 has been added to the reference list at page 18, line 859, as requested. Comments 8: Additional Bibliographical References

   In the bibliography, the name Coxon (Linn. 778-79) is out of alphabetical order. According to bibliographic conventions for studies dealing with classical texts, it is better to cite ancient authors in alphabetical order in a dedicated section, with references to the relevant editions. 

   Response 8：Thank you for your detailed and insightful feedback. Coxon has also been deleted from the reference list, as the discussion related to Parmenides has been removed from the main text.. We have also made sure to include relevant editions and publication details for the ancient authors, as suggested, to facilitate easier reference for readers.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have attached a file with further details. 

This article seems to be little more than a survey. There seems at first sight to be no mention in the bibliography, except for Bernabé 2011, of modern literature in any language other than English, though I presume that Wu might be written in a different language [I cannot locate this item in my local academic library’s catalogue]. Rather a lot of assumptions are made about what passages do accurately reflect early Orphism and what do not, and equal credence seems to be given to testimonies from the fourth century BC and sixth AD. Some passages in Plato that do not refer to Orphics explicitly are taken to be ‘Orphic’, mostly reasonably so, though not all would agree. The article treats a contested area, so that it requires considerably more argument, going back to original sources, than is offered here.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. Summary

   Thank you for your insightful and constructive feedback on our article. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted changes in the re-submitted manuscript. First, regarding the work by Wu, it is indeed written in Chinese. We have removed the reference from the manuscript and replaced it with the Teubner edition of Orphicorum et Orphicis Similium Fragmenta by Bernabé, which offers a more reliable and widely accessible source. Second, in response to your observation about the lack of non-English sources in the bibliography, we have now included several important modern interpretations in languages other than English. Specifically, we have added works by Wilamowitz, Macías, Kouremenos, Riedweg, and Casadesús, covering German and Spanish literature, which offer critical perspectives on the Orphic tradition and contribute to a more comprehensive analysis. Regarding the assumptions made about passages that reflect early Orphism, we agree that the line between what is considered “Orphic” and what is not can be tenuous, especially given the historical complexity of Orphism. We have revisited the relevant texts and clarified my reasoning with greater precision. Additionally, we take note of your observation regarding the treatment of testimonies from the fourth century BC and the sixth AD. We understand that these periods represent distinct phases in the development of Orphic thought, and we have sought to acknowledge the historical and contextual nuances that influenced the interpretation of Orphic texts. Finally, we agree that this is a contested area, and we have strengthened our arguments by engaging with more primary sources and providing a more detailed examination of the existing scholarly debates. Once again, thank you for your valuable feedback. We have carefully revised the article to address these points and ensure that the analysis is more rigorous and well-supported. 

   2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions

   Comments 1: 128-129: “As recounted by Olympiodorus, humanity was emerged from the ashes of the Titans (OF 220).” No reference is given here to where Olymp. cites this. The worry is that Damascius’ Phaedo-commentary was once attributed to Olymp., and would have been known as such to Kern, whose OF is cited. In this case I think“Olympiodorus” is correct. “was emerged” does not sound like good English to me.

   Response 1: We sincerely apologize for this oversight and thank the reviewer for highlighting it. We have now included the precise citation for Olympiodorus' commentary on Phaedo. Olympiodorus may have referred to Damascius' commentary while writing his own Phaedo commentary. The sentence has been revised to explicitly reference the 1976 edition of his work (Olympiodorus, 1976. The Greek commentaries on Plato’s Phaedo, translated by L.G. Westerink. Amsterdam, Oxford and New York: North-Holland Publishing Company.). Regarding the language issue with "was emerged," we have corrected the verb and revised the entire sentence based on the accurate wording found in Olympiodorus' commentary. We believe these changes improve the clarity and accuracy of our claim. The revised sentence now reads (on Page [3], Line [137-139]): “As recounted by Olympiodorus in his commentary on Plato’s Pheado (1.3 = OF 320i),2 humans were created from the soot of the vapors that rise from the Titans (Olympiodorus, 1976, p. 40).”

   Comments 2: 153-157: The Greeks were always indulging in highly suspect etymological speculation. In this case we are referred to Plutarch, but the volume cited is that of Plutarch’s fragments, so that we really do need to know who is citing Plutarch and where.

   Response 2: Agree. Thank you for your valuable feedback. Upon further investigation, we referred to Plutarch’s Moralia in the Loeb Classical Library and found that the fragments in question are indeed cited by Stobaeus. Specifically, they appear in Anthologium (Volume V, Chapter 52, Section 49), as edited by Otto Hense. We have now updated the manuscript to include the precise source of Plutarch’s fragments and have added the relevant reference in the bibliography. To enhance the accuracy and reliability of the text, I also revised the original wording according to the Greek text. The revised passage now reads as follows (on Page [4], Line [164-171]): “As Plutarch noted in a fragment cited by Stobaeus in the Anthologium (V. 52. 49), the experience of initiation into the mysteries mirrors the soul’s experience when approaching death. Thus, the Greek verbs “to die” (τελευτᾶν) and “to be purified” (τελεῖσθαι) express related processes (Stobaeus, 1912. p.1089). At the beginning of death, the soul may wander aimlessly, feeling terror, shivering, trembling, sweating, and amazement in the darkness. But after this, a marvelous light meets the wanderer, and open fields and meadows welcome him (Plutarch, 1969, pp. 317-318).” Comments 3: 404-405: “In its purest form, the soul 404 acts as an unmoved mover (κινεῖ ἀκίνητον ὄν)”. These words are Aristotle’s, not Plato’s. For Plato soul is self-mover, and a self-mover cannot be unmoved. Response 3: We sincerely apologize for this oversight. Upon your comment, I have revised the draft to remove the incorrect attribution of the soul as the "unmoved mover" (κινεῖ ἀκίνητον ὄν). We have also re-read the relevant passages from Plato’s Phaedrus (245c-246a) to ensure a more accurate interpretation. To enhance the clarity and flow of the argument, we have made some revisions and added improvements to the phrasing. The updated passage now reads as follows (on Page [9], Line [424-433]): “In the Phaedrus, the soul’s essential nature is defined as the immortal “self-mover” (τὸ αὐτὸ αὑτὸ κινοῦν), which is neither subject to destruction nor generation, serving as the source and spring of motion in all other things that move (245c-e). This means that, in a hypothetical ascending order of causes, no further cause of the soul can be superior in terms of its ability to generate motion (Luchetti, 2023, p.4). Every bodily object moved from outside has no soul; it is only through its union with soul that a body is capable of motion that originates from within, thereby possessing life (245e). However, once the soul unites with a mortal body, it is inevitably subjected to the changes of life and differentiates into various types. ” Comments 4: 448: The phrase “Before the emergence of Orphism” is very vague chronologically, and could be interpreted very differently. Response 4: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your comment about the phrase “before the emergence of Orphism” being chronologically vague, we have revised the sentence to be more specific. The revised version now references the understanding of the soul in both the Homeric epics and the works of Greek tragedians, such as Sophocles and Euripides. Additionally, we have clarified the discussion and added relevant citations to enhance the clarity of the argument. The revised passage is as follows (on Page [10], Line [478-485]): “In both the Homeric epics and the works of Greek tragedians such as Sophocles and Euripides, the soul was rarely considered the seat of reason. Instead, it was associated with courage, passion, compassion, anxiety, and animal appetite (Dodds, 1973, pp. 139-140). In certain contexts, the term ψυχή referred to the organ of conscience, often endowed with a form of non-rational perception. For example, Euripides’ verses in Daughters of Troy (1070f.) suggest that a baby might perceive the kiss and embrace of his mother through ψυχή without understanding them by means of reason (Euripides, 1997, p. 108).“  Comments 5: “Olympiodorus, in his commentary”: which commentary? Olymp. Has left substantial remains of two commentaries on Aristotle and three on Platonic works. Olympiodorus, 1978, is not is the list of references! Response 5: Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the unclear reference to Olympiodorus’ commentary. In response to your suggestion, We have removed the ambiguous reference to Olympiodorus’ commentary and instead introduced a more precise and contextually relevant citation from Damascius’ Commentary on Plato’s Phaedo. This source offers a clearer and more philosophically cohesive discussion of Orphism and its implications for the structure of the soul. Additionally, we have included Olympiodorus' Commentary on Plato’s Phaedo in the reference list for completeness. The revised passage now reads as follows (on Page [10], Line [487-496]): “As mentioned earlier, Orphism views the human soul as a fusion of the violent, material nature of the Titans and the divine purity of Dionysus, a process further shaped by Zeus’ thunderbolt, symbolizing illumination and reason. In his commentary on Plato’s Pheado (1.9), Damascius notes that the Titanic mode of life is an irrational pattern of existence, one that causes rational life to be torn asunder. When humans seek to belong solely to themselves, their inherent Titan nature drives them to break up the partnership between the superior and the inferior within themselves. This leads to a tearing apart of the inner self, resulting in a division between reason and the irrational or disrupting the natural continuity of human existence (Damascius, 1977, p. 32). “  Comments 6: 544: Λεότιος needs a nu in the middle. Response 6: Thank you for pointing out this error. We have now corrected the spelling to Λεόντιος as per your suggestion. The revised reference can be found on page 12, line 592. Comments 7: 651: Brisson 1998 is not in the references. Response 7: Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the missing reference to Brisson 1998. We have now added the full citation to the reference list. The complete reference is as follows (on Page [17], Line [805-806]): Brisson, Luc. 1998. Plato the Myth Maker, edited and translated by Gerard Naddaf. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Comments 8: n.2: I believe that Kern is out of date now that we have Bernabé’s collection: Orphicorum et Orphicis Similium fragmenta (vol. 2 was 2005) Response 8: Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the use of Orphic texts. We have replaced Kern's edition with Bernabé’s Orphicorum et Orphicis Similium fragmenta (2004-2007) in both the notes and reference list, and have updated all relevant citations throughout the text accordingly. Comments 9: n. 7: “out of Hades” (ἐξᾅδου) the Greek is two words, not one. Response 9: Thank you for pointing out the issue with the Greek phrase in note 7. We have made the necessary correction and now the text reads “out of Hades” (ἐξ ἅδου) in the revised version. Comments 10: n.9: The fact the Parmenides employs the word μῦθος is irrelevant given that its semantic range in the early fifth century, and especially poetry, would not exclude ordinary rational speech. Response 10: Thank you for your insightful comment. Regarding the discussion of Parmenides, we have removed the relevant sentence in the revised manuscript. Additionally, we have revised and expanded the conclusion, offering a more nuanced exploration of the relationship between μῦθος and λόγος in Plato's dialogues, further developing the original argument. Comments 11: References: Kern and Brisson are not there at all, while Coxon is misplaced. Response 11: Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the references. In response, we have now added Brisson to the reference list. Additionally, we have replaced Kern’s edition with Bernabé’s Orphicorum et Orphicis Similium Fragmenta (2004-2007) in both the notes and the reference list, which is why Kern has been removed. Coxon has also been deleted from the reference list, as the discussion related to Parmenides has been removed from the main text.

    

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciated the more in-depth and accurate elaboration of some content and the correction of errors. However, I regret that the author did not follow the recommendation to ALWAYS adhere to the citation conventions of ancient texts. The author does so only occasionally, but in many other cases does not.

I would like to point out the citations that still need to be revised (and I do not rule out the possibility that I may have missed others, but it is the principle that must be applied).

For example:

• Line 138: he/she correctly writes “According to Ovid's Metamorphoses (X.40-64),” but a few lines below (lines 143-144), he/she writes: “At that moment, Eurydice was immediately pulled back just before her rebirth could be completed (Ovid, 1955, pp. 235-236).”

• Lines 155-156: he/she writes (Stobaeus, 1912. p.1089) Pay attention to the italics in the parentheses!
• Line 473:(Damascius, 1977, p. 32)
• Lin 773 note 4: (Philodemus, 1996, p. 357).
•  I see few character formatting issues (see bibliography lines 801-802)
• Line 208 error in the Greek spelling of όργια instead of ὄργια

 

Author Response

1. Summary
Thank you for your thorough and constructive feedback on our revised manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your recognition of the more in-depth and accurate elaboration of the content, as well as the corrections made. We apologize for the oversight regarding the adherence to the citation conventions for ancient texts. And we have carefully addressed your comments and made the necessary revisions throughout the manuscript to fully comply with the citation conventions.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: I appreciated the more in-depth and accurate elaboration of some content and the correction of errors. However, I regret that the author did not follow the recommendation to ALWAYS adhere to the citation conventions of ancient texts. The author does so only occasionally, but in many other cases does not. I would like to point out the citations that still need to be revised (and I do not rule out the possibility that I may have missed others, but it is the principle that must be applied). For example: ·Line 138: he/she correctly writes “According to Ovid's Metamorphoses (X.40-64),” but a few lines below (lines 143-144), he/she writes: “At that moment, Eurydice was immediately pulled back just before her rebirth could be completed (Ovid, 1955, pp. 235-236).” ·Lines 155-156: he/she writes (Stobaeus, 1912. p.1089) Pay attention to the italics in the parentheses! ·Line 473:(Damascius, 1977, p. 32) ·Lin 773 note 4: (Philodemus, 1996, p. 357).  I see few character formatting issues (see bibliography lines 801-802) ·Line 208 error in the Greek spelling of όργια instead of ὄργια

Response 1: Thank you very much for your insightful comments. In response to your suggestion, we have ensured that all references to ancient texts are always cited using the standard numbering system, rather than relying on page numbers from modern editions. Additionally, we have included the specific versions or translations used in the reference list to ensure full transparency and consistency. Below are the specific responses to your detailed points: （1） Line 138: We have revised the citation for Ovid’s Metamorphoses to ensure consistency with the the citation conventions. The revised text now reads (on Page 4, Lines 148-152)： “According to Ovid, Orpheus descended alone into the Underworld in an attempt to retrieve his lost wife, Eurydice. Through the enchanting power of his music and poetry, he succeeded in moving Hades, the god of the Underworld, who granted him permission to lead Eurydice back to life (Metamorphoses X. 40-64).” （2） Lines 155-156: We have corrected the italics issue in the citation for Stobaeus. The proper formatting has been applied. The revised text now reads (on Page 4, Lines 162-166)： “As Plutarch noted in a fragment cited by Stobaeus, the experience of initiation into the mysteries mirrors the soul’s experience when approaching death. Thus, the Greek verbs “to die” (τελευτᾶν) and “to be purified” (τελεῖσθαι) express related processes (Anthologium V. 52. 49). “ （3） Line 473: We have revised the citation for Damascius adhere to the correct citation conventions. The updated passage now reads as follows (on Page 10, Lines 487-493): “In his commentary on Plato’s Phaedo (1.9), Damascius notes that the Titanic mode of life is an irrational pattern of existence, one that causes rational life to be torn asunder. When humans seek to belong solely to themselves, their inherent Titan nature drives them to break up the partnership between the superior and the inferior within themselves. This leads to a tearing apart of the inner self, resulting in a division between reason and the irrational or disrupting the natural continuity of human existence.” （4） Line 773 (note 4): We have updated the citation for Philodemus, ensuring proper formatting and consistency. The updated passage now reads as follows (on Page 16, Lines 767-769): “The concept of “the triple” may be related to Dionysus as a god of three births. According to the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus, these comprise his birth from his mother, his rebirth from the thigh of Zeus, and the third from his dismembered body (On piety 19. 529-532).” （5） Lines 801-802 (Character Formatting): Regarding the formatting issues in the bibliography, we have corrected the italicization of the titles of books as suggested. You can find the corrected formatting on page 17, lines 796-798. （6） Line 208 (Greek Spelling): We have corrected the spelling of ὄργια instead of όργια in line 219 on page 5, as you pointed out. In addition to the citation issues you pointed out above, we have also revised other instances throughout the manuscript where ancient texts are referenced. These include: the citation of Plutarch on pages 4, lines 166-169; the citation of Herodotus on page 5, lines 214-216; the citation of Euripides on page 10, lines 480-482; and the citation of Proclus on page 16, lines 770-771. We hope these revisions meet your expectations, and we sincerely appreciate your attention to the importance of proper citation practices for ancient texts.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I confess that I was not sure a revision of this merit was possible. It is indeed greatly improved, and it is now much easier to see the academic contribution it is making. Two slights problems, which I am sure the author would want to fix, have been introduced in the new text: (1) there are two mis-spellings of Phaedo as 'Pheado' [many people seem to do this!], and (2) at 656 I read 'obstruct hinder', where I suspect the author either intended to insert 'and', or to omit one of these terms.

Author Response

1. Summary
We are grateful to the reviewer for the encouraging feedback and for identifying the minor issues in our revised manuscript. We have carefully addressed these points, correcting the typographical errors and improving the wording to enhance clarity. We believe the manuscript has benefited from these refinements.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: I confess that I was not sure a revision of this merit was possible. It is indeed greatly improved, and it is now much easier to see the academic contribution it is making. Two slights problems, which I am sure the author would want to fix, have been introduced in the new text: (1) there are two mis-spellings of Phaedo as ‘Pheado’[many people seem to do this!], and (2) at 656 I read ‘obstruct hinder’, where I suspect the author either intended to insert 'and', or to omit one of these terms.

Response 1: We are very grateful for the your encouraging comments and careful reading of our revised manuscript. We have addressed the two issues raised as follows: (1) Misspelling of Phaedo Thank you for catching this. We have corrected the two instances of “Pheado” to “Phaedo” (on page 3, line 138; page 10, line 487). (2) Redundancy in “obstruct hinder” We agree with the your observation. We have deleted “hinder” to avoid redundancy, retaining only “obstruct” (on page 14, line 681).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf