Somehow, finding snarky reviews is almost too easy. This one is quite nasty, though.
Genesis A, by A. N. Doane, reviewed by Edward B. Irving, Jr. in Speculum 55:1 (1980), pp. 104-106.
Unfortunately Professor Doane labors under the handicap of several major assumptions that consistently distort his presentation of this long biblical paraphrase. (...) Doane's philology, as far as it bears on his interpretation of the text, tends to be ruinously permissive, holding that Scribes Know Best. Like all narrowly dogmatic approaches to editing, this one as often ends with the editor sweating to defend silly readings as it ends in good sense.
But in many other passages we simply cannot tell from the text whether the poet was in truth implying such meanings. I think it would be best to say just that, but such a statement would never satisfy this editor, who resorts to strenuous overreadings, imaginary puns, and those ominous "must have knowns" and "almost certainly would have been familiar withs" that the Robertsonians have been afflicting us with for nearly three decades now – when in doubt, quote a very long Latin passage from Augustine in your note with a "cf.” to preface it; someone may be impressed, even if there is no demonstrable connection with anything in the Old English poem.
Incidentally, does anyone have an opinion on that book or on other editions of Genesis A ?
- Current Mood: crazy