I can certainly understand that attitude, but I don't share it. There's often a tendency to shrug and say Oh well, that's the general public, and here we are in this nice comfortable ivory tower, and never the twain shall meet.
I bring up the subject of the Swerve here, in this sub, because I'm interested in the reactions of Classicists, and of historians, to widespread popular misconceptions, and more generally, the reactions of specialists, of experts, when misinformation becomes widespread. And if that weren't enough, it comes with a big blurb on its cover by Mary Beard, so much for me ever taking Beard seriously. I find it particularly unfortunate that a book so rife with historical inaccuracy has been not only a huge bestseller - if I got angry at every silly bestseller, I'd hardly have the time or energy to get upset about anything else - but also the recipient of so many scholarly prizes. I was appalled at the consistent inaccuracy about Epicurianism, Lucretius, the transmission of Lucretius, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance - in short, the book is inaccurate about nearly everything. I only read The Swerve recently, after years' worth of recommendations by non-Classicists and non-historians.
This may be an old topic for many of you.
0 kommentar(er)
