Academic Adumbrates Umbrage

Academic Taking Umbrage

Is it he or me?

(Yes, I know that's ungrammatical.)

(Image from Free Dictionary)

Regular readers may recall my two posts on Milton's understanding of sacred in the "sacred fruit" that grew on the tree of knowledge.

The article that I was working on at the time has now been accepted by a journal and will soon be published. Of course, I had to make some changes -- and resist making others -- based on suggestions offered by three referees.

Most referees attempt a fair reading, but some merely pretend to. My second referee fell into the latter category, seemingly taking 'scholarly' offense at my article (and I've put the unjustified remarks in red font):

This paper is based on a etymological study of the word "sacred" used by Adam to describe the Tree of Knowledge in order to argue that 1) Adam is indeed expressing Milton's own view that the tree's fruit is originally sacred 2) that by "sacred," Milton seems to mean not the dynamic power of holiness but the holy as pure and set apart, whereas Adam's view on this point remains unclear and 3) Milton portrays the fruit as no longer sacred after its plucking but as "unhallowd" in the strong sense of being imbued with a force of impurity, a point that Adam fails to recognize.

I found the reading "chaotic," digressive, fractured and still unsure as to why something so obvious and limited in scope need even be discussed in a scholarly paper. Yet, I am going to suggest that it be published in this journal in the hope that others might discover gold where I only see pebbles.

The following corrections are suggested:

1) The abstract and keyword should go to the back of the article.
2) One question that comes to mind is what does the section on "Excursus: Chaos and Evil" have to do with the overall topic on Tree of Knowledge? It could be my lack of understanding or it could be that the author fail to make the connection in the paper: in which case, the author should either explain why the discussion on chaos is integral to the paper on the sacred nature of the Tree of Knowledge or delete it.
3) Are all the different versions of the bible and dictionaries listed in the Bibliography really necessary?

There it is, with the harsh remarks highlighted. I suppose that I owe this referee some modicum of gratitude for recommending publication, but I rather think a caning over the head more appropriate.

I accepted suggestion number one since I was going to do that anyway, but everything else in the review was objectionable -- aside from the recommendation that my article be published (an inexplicable recommendation, given the referee's critique, but I won't complain about that). For the benefit of the journal that had accepted my article (and possibly for the referee, to whom it might be forwarded), I penned a response, and here's what I wrote (with block quotes of the referee's words in red):

The second referee summarizes my article:

This paper is based on a etymological study of the word "sacred" used by Adam to describe the Tree of Knowledge in order to argue that 1) Adam is indeed expressing Milton's own view that the tree's fruit is originally sacred 2) that by "sacred," Milton seems to mean not the dynamic power of holiness but the holy as pure and set apart, whereas Adam's view on this point remains unclear and 3) Milton portrays the fruit as no longer sacred after its plucking but as "unhallowd" in the strong sense of being imbued with a force of impurity, a point that Adam fails to recognize.

My article is based on more than an 'etymological' study of the word "sacred," which is only one of the terms that I've subjected to philological investigation. Moreover, I use my investigation in an attempt to sketch Milton's system for organizing his concepts of the sacred, the common, the impure, and the pure and to apply this system toward explaining in what sense these terms are being used with respect to the fruit of the tree of knowledge, as well as to other, connected things such as chaos and creation and the topic of evil.

The second referee then characterized my effort as follows:

I found the reading "chaotic," digressive, fractured and still unsure as to why something so obvious and limited in scope need even be discussed in a scholarly paper.

I cannot dispute the "reader response" of this referee in finding my article "chaotic," "digressive," or "fractured" (though some supporting examples of these would have been helpful), but the referee surely did not intend to imply that my article is "still unsure."

Presumably, what was meant was that the referee was still unsure. But as for what was "so obvious and limited in scope" that it "need [not] even be discussed in a scholarly paper," the referee has left unspecified. I infer that the referee is referring to the three points summarized above, but I do not see that these are either "obvious" or "limited in scope." Perhaps the referee could have been more explicit, specifying, e.g., the obviousness of Milton's view that "sacred" in the expression "sacred fruit" meant "not the dynamic power of holiness but the holy as pure and set apart."

The second referee also suggests:

2) One question that comes to mind is what does the section on "Excursus: Chaos and Evil" have to do with the overall topic on Tree of Knowledge? It could be my lack of understanding or it could be that the author fail [sic] to make the connection in the paper: in which case, the author should either explain why the discussion on chaos is integral to the paper on the sacred nature of the Tree of Knowledge or delete it.

As noted above [in remarks related to referee number one], I open my excursus with these words: "The view that impurity is linked to the 'infernal' dregs of chaos touches upon an issue that has received some attention, namely, whether or not chaos is evil." The point is thus explicitly linked and has deeper connections for Milton's system of the sacred, the common, the impure, and the pure. The referee misunderstands my paper to be about "the overall topic on Tree of Knowledge," but it is actually about the sacredness of the tree and its fruit and the relation of this sacredness to Milton's larger system, including the question of where impurity comes from, which raises the issue of chaos and evil. At any rate, I have added the clarifying phrase noted above [i.e., in a response to referee number one: "The view that impurity -- and thus also the impurity of the fallen fruit -- is linked to the "infernal" dregs of chaos touches upon an issue that has received some attention, namely, whether or not chaos is evil"].

Another suggestion was made:

3) Are all the different versions of the bible and dictionaries listed in the Bibliography really necessary?

Yes, they are necessary, for I cite them in my article and therefore need to list them in a bibliography titled "Works Cited."

That this second referee failed to notice that I had cited these various dictionaries and Bible versions suggests a hasty reading of my article, an inference supported by what appears to have been a hastily written review.

That's what I wrote, and I hope that it reaches the referee's eyes. Fortunately, the other two referees liked my article. Here's part of what referee number three said:

This essay is quite strong in its close reading and its astute attention to the provenance and history of the major terms, and it no doubt works quite well at that level of philological scrutiny, which I believe this journal has a strong preference for .... [T]hree cheers to the vigilant philological labour; indeed, that alone is enough to grant the paper a space in this journal.

Referee number one also wrote some nice things, but if I posted them here, I'd have to translate them into English for most of my readers, so I'll just leave matters as they stand and hope that this blogpost has been at least mildly entertaining.