Google doth make scholars of us all
Although - till today - too pressed down by things undone to post, I have been following the biblioblogsphere. I'm still not sure how to respond to the forgery indictments, the most talked about objects have always seemed suspect to me, especially the James ossuary and the ivory pomegranate, yet how far do we take this skepticism, and if reputable museums display unprovenanced rubbish how do ordinary teachers decide what to use...
But I can join the schoolboy strand
- see: 'Ralph' on The Brilliant Schoolboy
, a comment
by Jim Davila (Paleojudaica) and now Mark's fine and scholarly "not so brilliant
" addition. Mark googled "schoolboyish error" but only returned to his starting quotation. As a result he began - reading between the lines - to doubt his own fine nuancing of the original theory. Help is at hand, and Google
doth make scholars of us all, I looked up merely the word "schoolboyish" and discovered (among the dross of much porn, quite a bit of humour and a little dash of enthusiasm) the gem...
August Bebel's Society of the Future
published sometime around 1910 as an abridged version of the latter part of his 1897 book Woman and Socialism
writes (ch.10) quoting Karl Marx:
Since Malthus, the law of population increase has been widely disputed. In his once famous and now notorious Essay on the Principles of Population, which Karl Marx characterised as a "schoolboyish, superficial and pulpiteer piece of declamatory plagiarism from Sir James Stewart, Townsend, Franklin Wallace, etc.", and which "contains not a single original sentence"...
This now requires us to further nuance Mark's nuanced view of the Brilliant Schoolboy hypothesis, as well as brilliant, but sometimes error prone the mythical schoolboy is superficial and liable to enthusiasms...