Genesis B and the Comedic Imperative. John F. Vickrey. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press; Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015. Pp. xii+324.
Kate Greenspan
Previous articleNext article FreeBook ReviewGenesis B and the Comedic Imperative. John F. Vickrey. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press; Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015. Pp. xii+324.Kate GreenspanKate GreenspanSkidmore College Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreIn “Genesis B” Imperative Vickrey offers a philological refutation of what he considers chief problem in modern Genesis scholarship: “cottage industry” (96) historically philologically underinformed critical studies that have represented Eve as admirable innocent, Adam not too bright, Tempter Byronic hero. His reaction such arguments informs both focus tone his book. suggests presents Adam, Eve, fully developed characters who intelligence ability choose among full range human behaviors, other critics suggested, but allegorical figures late antique psychology temptation, tribus modis rationale (ratio, sensus, suggestio), modified given additional force “comedic imperative” (25–26), mode Christian mythos. Only after Fall do they begin acquire few personal attributes turn them into character types, be understood tropologically prelapsarian postredemptive. This important shift their significance points Vickrey’s organizing insight: though ends tragedy, larger story, comedy, is over. argues Old Saxon poet wittily signals blissful end throughout poem, thereby refutes Gottschalkian theory predestination.Vickrey at best when detailed analyses subtle dramatic movements arise from grammatical structures semantic change. He explores themes obedience, Anglo-Saxon martiality, Christianization warrior ethos vocabulary, languages visionary experience cunning. close readings reveal sharp ear modulations tone, especially dialogue, where teaches us hear living voice it cajoles, threatens, commands, defies. At moments, makes most convincing case poet’s largely unacknowledged wit. Throughout book also illuminates B’s historical theological contexts ways should find instructive.Yet despite its significant insights, good be. Editorial negligence has resulted inclusion several poorly integrated conference presentations (chap. 2 even refers itself “the present paper” [25]). In chapters break off, continued, we are told, later or (more disconcertingly) an earlier chapter. The editors left work piecing together argument readers, whom assist chiefly frequent repetition book’s basic claims.Other factors interfere with readers’ attention. treatment translations, example, uneven. Sometimes appear quoted passage; sometimes endnotes; all. translations individual verses simultaneously over accurate infelicitous. For translates bryd “bride/woman” wlitescience wif (lines 526b, 527a) “beautiful wife/woman” (52) without indicating how choice between “woman” “bride” “wife” might affect our understanding passage. four manuscript illustrations Junius 11 discussed chapter 4, “Adamic Failure,” no page numbers, figure captions identify them; out come only begins analysis them, some eight pages While none these flaws fatal, indicate editorial laxness does serve well.In end, suffers excess bile. Vickrey, himself proponent “orthodox school” (2), spends much opening chastising “exonerative (2) reading does, is, expert philologist intimately familiar Anglo-Saxon, Saxon, Latin languages; source, Genesis; dominant theology Carolingian period; tenor companion texts 11. minor masterpiece outrage questions opponents’ linguistic proficiency, quality education, intentions institutions produced ill-educated PhDs, lamenting “Queen Philology” been deposed, sway Dame safely confined Sanjak Subtle-Nuance” (22). So overcome loathing would read “from point view own time” (14) course ten can never quite take mind off transgressions sustain uninterrupted argument. done better on making tighter demonstration centrality change, poetic intention, context B. favors distracting us—and himself—with animadversions against those disagrees.There learned book, summa author’s lifelong study Yet experienced Anglo-Saxonists will need considerable patience sort poem. Because complex so fragmented because refuses engage meaningful way exonerative scholarship repeatedly rejects, finally limits usefulness scholars. DetailsFiguresReferencesCited Modern Philology Volume 114, Number 2November 2016 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/686921HistoryPublished online September 07, permission reuse, please contact [email protected]PDF download Crossref reports citing article.
Modern Philology