Hortus Conclusus—A Mariological Metaphor in Some Renaissance Paintings of the Annunciation in the Light of Medieval Liturgical Hymns
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of the article is interesting, the research is carried out professionally, the conclusions are clear, the author's personal interest in the topic is evident, as well as his/her personal contribution to the analysis of the presented paintings.
I have no objections regarding the theme, structuring and hymnographic analysis. However, I had some questions regarding the visual examples. It is not entirely clear why the author settled on these ten paintings - some of the artists are clerics, but others are not, so it is not a unifying motif, the type of works is different, the location, etc. Do these ten examples alone visualize the theme of the hortus conclusus in Renaissance painting, or there are more like these? If there are others, why not at least mention some of them at the end of the third section of the article - this would strengthen the conclusions of the iconographic analysis and would strengthen the author's position.
There are some editing omissions in the text:
Line 48 - "articulations. proclamations" Which word have to stay?
Lines 86-100 - would it be better if this one and only hymn from the 11th-12th century, should be placed chronologically first, given that it may be the earliest known?
Lines 445-484 – similar chronology question
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This article begins with pages of verses from medieval hymns that reference the hortus conclusus. This listing of verses, with brief interpolated descriptions rather than analyses, makes for tedious reading. The author then concludes that these hymns support a reading of the gardens depicted in Renaissance paintings of the Annunciation as employing the hortus conclusus metaphor to represent Mary’s virginity (and, more broadly and hence less meaningfully, “the excellence and fullness of her supernatural virtues and attributes”). The author then claims to “analyze” 10 paintings of Annunciations with gardens, and, in each case, gives a brief formal description of the positioning and appearance of Mary and Gabriel in their surroundings, and identifies any inscriptions which may be included. Each garden is, via these iconographical observations, concluded to be a hortus conclusus. At one point the author writes “it sounds evident that [the painter] seeks to communicate the idea of the hortus conclusus as a symbol of Mary’s virginal divine motherhood … as the medieval liturgical hymns celebrate.” Yes, this is very evident in all of the paintings, which is why art historians have been teaching this meaning of Annunciation gardens for, minimally, decades. There is nothing new here regarding the metaphorical import of the hortus conclusus as it is meant to be communicated in both hymns and paintings. The author is surprised that extensive interpretation of the hortus conclusus is not included in scholarship which address the paintings; this may be because he/she is unaware that the metaphorical intent of the gardens in painted Annunciations is now assumed and, unless it is the goal of a scholar to specifically offer new insights into, or readings of, the hortus conclusus, there is no call to rehash the evidence for this interpretation. No new insights are provided here, and there is no attempt to associate the texts of specific hymns with specific paintings. While this compilation may prove a convenient introduction to readers unfamiliar with the hortus conclusus tradition, I am unable to detect any actual advances in scholarship.
There are many typographical errors and the choice of English words/phrasing is often awkward.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I think that it would be easier to read if, in the main text, only the hymn's translations appear, writing the original in Latin in a footnote. Or maybe the opposite.
Dates and locations of the works of art, better in ().
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
I thank very much the third reviewer for his/her remarks.
For the first remark, I have changed the disposition of hymns' texts, leaving their English translation in the main text, and their Latin original in the footnotes.
Regarding the second remark, I have done any change, because this is the usual form of citation in Art History.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The author has not addressed any issues other than correcting some typos. Here, as in the article, he/she says his object is to 'expose' (clearly problematic use of English) the texts of the hymns rather than analyze them. While it is possible to bring to light previously unpublished texts without an accompanying analysis (is this what the author is claiming to do?), this is irrelevant in the context of an article that claims to demonstrate that the texts were used as source material for paintings. The author's response makes it clear that personal religious beliefs play a substantial role in the arguments he/she is making; for example, "After all, there have been, are and will be millions of perpetual virgins throughout the world, but there is only one who is the virginal mother of God the Son incarnated as man" (author's underlining and bold type). This assumption can be felt throughout the work. The author asserts, without evidence, that Renaissance paintings of the hortus conclusus derived directly from hymns; he/she does not consider the many religious texts which also employed this well-known metaphor. His/her argument that he/she is the only one to explain doctrinal meanings of the h.c. "based exclusively on medieval liturgical hymns, as I have done in this article" reveals a strong weakness, rather than strength, of the article. No evidence is provided of patrons or painters being guided by the wording of hymns (in 'Annunciation' or other imagery) or the popularity of any of these hymns in the regions where the paintings were constructed. He/she does not address the possibility of other, non-hymnal texts, sermons, etc., that may have been influential, or of the relevance of medieval visual precedents. The author's reply also seems to suggest that he/she is the first to recognize the h.c. as representing virginal divine motherhood (again, author's underlining and bold type) -- what else could it possibly represent in an image of the 'Annunciation'? The author does not seem to realize how common this knowledge is. The author also believes that he/she has proven that the h.c. in 'Annunciation' paintings speak to Mary's 'perpetual virginity' because this meaning can be derived from hymns -- where is the iconographical justification for this assertion?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
