On Manuscripts, Prints and Blessed Transformations: Caterina da Siena’s Legenda maior as a Model of Sainthood in Premodern Castile

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscripts discussed in section 2, especially beginning on p. 7 need to have a representational stemma to guide the reader. 

Also, you need to make clearer exactly what reforms and positions that Cisneros was advocating.  You get at this near the end of the article but it needs to be included much earlier.

On page 13, you state that "the role of the Cisnerian books in the creation of models of sanctity need to be critically revised" but you don't say how these should be revised.

Also the style is awkward and sometimes a bit too conversational. For example, the use of "Let's in line 141.

Other examples, the use of "pretty" in line 272. The phrase "this Caterina's quality" in line 293 is just plain bad grammar.

Other needs for stylistic revision:

Line 305. What is more, this fact is easily linkable....

line 323 a lot of things

lines 414-419....hard to follow.

I believe the author has done valuable research and the bibliography is extensive but the conclusions do not really follow from the material presented. I agree with the conclusions but the arguments for coming to them need to better organized and presented.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, I really want to thank you your comments on my article. I know that this sound as a cliche, but they really helped me to improve the quality of my article. Thank you so much for your critical reading. 

On the other hand, I copy below your suggestions and respond to them one by one:

The manuscripts discussed in section 2, especially beginning on p. 7 need to have a representational stemma to guide the reader. Yes, that is true. I have included a stemma codicum based in Silvia Nocentini's to guide the reader (I'm waiting for her authorization to use it, though).

Also, you need to make clearer exactly what reforms and positions that Cisneros was advocating.  You get at this near the end of the article but it needs to be included much earlier. Yes. I have included a new paragraph at the beginning of the article explaining and discussing this, including new bibliography on the subject. I have tried to be clearer at this respect in the conclusions and through the article.

On page 13, you state that "the role of the Cisnerian books in the creation of models of sanctity need to be critically revised" but you don't say how these should be revised. I have developed this idea.

Also the style is awkward and sometimes a bit too conversational. For example, the use of "Let's in line 141. This is because, obviously, I'm not English native and my English proofreader worked on a first English version written by me. We together have proofed the whole manuscript again. I think the English now is not "conversational" at all, the reading is smoother and the mistakes that you have pointed out are corrected.

Other examples, the use of "pretty" in line 272. The phrase "this Caterina's quality" in line 293 is just plain bad grammar.

Other needs for stylistic revision:

Line 305. What is more, this fact is easily linkable....

line 323 a lot of things

lines 414-419....hard to follow.

I believe the author has done valuable research and the bibliography is extensive but the conclusions do not really follow from the material presented. I agree with the conclusions but the arguments for coming to them need to better organized and presented. I hope it reads better now. Thank you again.

Reviewer 2 Report

This article makes a significant contribution to Catherinian Studies in its exploration into the reception of St Catherine of Siena in the Iberian peninsula in the early sixteenth century. The author breaks new ground in looking at what sources were available and used in the literal and figurative translation of Catherine of Siena into a model of sanctity in Spain. Of particular importance is highlighting how Catherine’s image of holiness was appropriated and used within the reform of Cisneros and in turn how the material translated reveals its association with ‘first Catherine’ of Raimondo of Capua and Maconi.

The arguments are sound and clearly supported.

I would strongly suggest that the article be revisited in regard to clarity of expression and word choice. I believe this is a translation. It is a good translation, but it could be more fluent. If the translation/writing is tightened up and clarified, I believe this article will have a very large readership.

In regard to the dissemination of Catherine of Siena’s works, it might be helpful to look at Suzanne Noffke, ‘The Writings of Catherine of Siena: Manuscript Tradition’, in A Companion to Catherine of Siena,  ed. Muessig, Ferzoco, and Kienzle (Leiden, 2013), pp. 295-338 and also in the same volume, S. Nocentini, ‘The Legenda maior of Catherine of Siena’, pp. 339-357.

I recommend that the translation be cleaned up a bit.

I have only listed a few stylistic items below as I am not sure what the house style is.

When referring to Raimondo da Capua, refer to him as Raimondo da Capua. He should not be referred to as da Capua, that would be like referring to Francis of Assisi as Assisi.

Not convinced ‘avatar’ is the best word to indicate a particular model of holiness.

1Line 25 Da Capua should be Raimondo da Capua 2 Line 51 Clara d’Assisi should be Chiara d’Assisi 3Line 71 Da Capua should be Raimondo da Capua

on p. 3 line 72, the ‘he’ is ambiguous. Tommaso Caffarini wrote the Supplemento but I think the author wants to say that Raimondo da Capua in Caffarini’s Supplemento ‘declares’ … Please clarify.

p. 4 'making in her late reception' – ‘making’ is chosen I guess to provide an alternative to ‘construction’ in line 104. Why not say: ‘to correctly understand her reception in the sixteenth century.’

p. 4, line 113 indicate where does the translated ‘atypical and unusual character’ come from. It says ibid, but that would refer back to Luongo who writes in English.

p. 5 ll. 138-140 unclear, rewrite/restructure

p.5, line  141 what ‘following lines’?

p. 5, line, 148 Thomas Antonio of Siena, -- not everyone will know this he is Caffarini. That should be made clear.

p. 9 l. 296, the Da Capua’s Prologue (correct grammar)

p. 13, ll. 415/419 (could be clearer)

Author Response

Dear peer,

Thank you for your comments and the very positive evaluation of my article. You have  really helped me to improve my article (and, for ones, this is not a cliche).

The version that you read was written by me (obviously not a native speaker) and corrected by an English proofreader. We have worked togheter again to improve the translation (tone, the mistakes that you kindly note, etc.).I have follow all your advices regarding style (for instance, I have changed the tittle: now "avatar" = "transformation") and I think that the reading is really smoother now. 

 Thank you again for everything.