Dear Keith,
the three reviewers provided thoughtful, interesting and useful comments for which I like to thank them. Also thank you for your first level reply to these comments. Overall, the picture that is coming through from the reviews is very positive. Clearly, this paper will help the hydrological community to better understand the background to theories and practices we are using. The reviews also demonstrate that discussing this background reveal somewhat different perceptions that these theories hold in our science. If this paper would stimulated further that discussion, it would be a very good outcome of this special issue contribution.
What I propose is that you try in the discussion to reflect somehow this diversity of opinions, e.g. on if the era of infiltration is over or not and the general lack of verification of our theories as a reason for the over-reliance on infiltration theory. A few other suggestions have been made by the reviewers, I stimulate you to consider these.
I agree with Referee #3 that a restructure of the beginning of the paper could help digesting the structure of the paper easier. The paper now starts off as if it is obvious what the ‘Infiltration theory of runoff’ entails. I am afraid we cannot assume this. An initial short description of your understanding of this theory and how and in which section this will be further explained and discussed would go a long way in giving the reader some guidance.

Dear Keith,
the three reviewers provided thoughtful, interesting and useful comments for which I like to thank them. Also thank you for your first level reply to these comments. Overall, the picture that is coming through from the reviews is very positive. Clearly, this paper will help the hydrological community to better understand the background to theories and practices we are using. The reviews also demonstrate that discussing this background reveal somewhat different perceptions that these theories hold in our science. If this paper would stimulated further that discussion, it would be a very good outcome of this special issue contribution.
What I propose is that you try in the discussion to reflect somehow this diversity of opinions, e.g. on if the era of infiltration is over or not and the general lack of verification of our theories as a reason for the over-reliance on infiltration theory. A few other suggestions have been made by the reviewers, I stimulate you to consider these.
I agree with Referee #3 that a restructure of the beginning of the paper could help digesting the structure of the paper easier. The paper now starts off as if it is obvious what the ‘Infiltration theory of runoff’ entails. I am afraid we cannot assume this. An initial short description of your understanding of this theory and how and in which section this will be further explained and discussed would go a long way in giving the reader some guidance.

Two reviews were received, Referee 3 is satisfied will all the changes. Referee 1 believes the title is biased and suggests to change the title. As the title is taken from a historical document and is a quote of an important scientist of that time, I believe the title is appropriate. Moreover, the title requires you to dive into the paper in order to fully understand the context of the title, which I think is an excellent attribute of an attractive title.
However, I leave it up to the author to decide on the title.