Talk:Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books History of Science Low‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. inactive .Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles

Women writers Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

See Talk:Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men/GA1 for the review. Cirt (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was anyone here aware of Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects? That was published in 1550. Was the title of encyclopedia inspired by that title? The only other work with a similar title where I can find an article on Wikipedia is Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets (1781) by Johnson. Incidentally, this article says "a biographical style made popular by the eighteenth-century critic Samuel Johnson in his Lives of the Poets (1779–81)", so the dates need fixing or clarifying in one or the other place, and the title seems to vary as well (English gets dropped sometimes, unless there was a separate volume for English Poets?). I've fixed the link in the article by creating this redirect. I also used the prefix index to throw up the following articles on books with similar titles and purposes.

• Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans
  (Plutarch)
• Lives of the Sophists (two titles, Philostratus and Eunapius)
• Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects (Giorgio Vasari)
• Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets (Samuel Johnson)
• Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men (Mary Shelley)

• Johnson's work is usually referred to as "Lives of the Poets" and was published over the course of several years, so that solves those mysteries. The years in this article are correct. I have now fixed the stub. The formulation "Lives of...." was common for centuries, so I don't think we can draw any conclusions from those title similarities, unfortunately. Thanks for taking care of the redirect housekeeping, etc.!
  talk) 16:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Aha! But what about the "Most Excellent" -> "Most Eminent" similarity! I've had a look, and it seems that the Vasari title is also translated as 'Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects'. There are other titles as well (The Lives of the Most Eminent British Painters, Sculptors, and Architects - By Allan Cunningham; Lives of the Most Eminent Foreign Statesmen - By George Payne Rainsford James, Eyre Evans Crowe). Some of those are from the Cabinet Cyclopaedia (and we should have at least a stub on that). Wasn't there some Wikipedia article that became a cause celebre at some point for pointing out loads of books that used a similar formulation in the title? I really should be able to remember which article that was! Anyway, I do wonder whether the "Most Eminent" formulation has more of a direct link? Obviously if no-one has made the link, we can't directly do so, but there could at least be a "see also" or a mention or a category or, failing everything else, <ahem>, a talk page discussion... Carcharoth (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I don't know how important the connection is, really. There really are hundreds, if not thousands, of books with this title. At most, these books are part of tradition of Lives, but that doesn't really say much when that tradition stretches from Plutarch to the nineteenth century. Anyhow, as you say, we have noted it on the talk page!
  talk) 13:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I said, about
  Cabinet Cyclopaedia, that we "should have at least a stub on that". I must confess that I had failed to get beyond the lead section. I now see that the first section of this article is about the Cabinet Cyclopedia. Still, I am wondering if eventually there will be a separate article about the Cyclopedia, or whether this part is more notable (to use an oft-detested phrase) than the whole? Carcharoth (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I wondered about that, too. However, I could find only one article about the Cyclopaedia (the Peckham) and I have only seen it discussed in relation to Mary Shelley's contributions. That does not mean that some of the other volumes aren't important. However, when I put various search terms into the MLA database and JSTOR, the only things that came up were the Peckham article and the articles on Mary Shelley. I have not done exhaustive research on the Cabinet Cyclopaedia, however. I think if someone were to find good sources for another volume, that would immediately convince me to break off the Cyclopaedia section into its own article and only retain a summary here. Since I haven't seen any other sources, though, I didn't see a reason to do that.
  talk) 13:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

To all who helped produce this article: you all did a great job. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a great article. Thankyou.

talk) 18:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks - it's always nice to hear from readers!

talk) 18:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Her political views are most obvious in the Italian Lives, where she supports the

Italian independence movement and promotes republicanism

; in the French Lives she portrays women sympathetically, explaining their political and social restrictions and arguing that women can be productive members of society if given the proper educational and social opportunities.

This (from the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article) may be the justification for having this article at all; it's certainly a claim of notability. It would be nice to have these points actually discussed in the article text - preferably with examples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the section headed "Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopaedia" should be spun off into its own article named "Cabinet Cyclopaedia".—Finell 09:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet Cyclopedia

I strongly agree and will do so in a fortnight if there is no disagreement. — Robert Greer (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to this point, List of works in Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopædia is now under development. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still cross-checking the bibliographical data. But it looks like this article could do with a fact-check. There were, it seems, two sets of Lives, each of five volumes, one British, the other for the Romance authors. So there should not be undue weight on Shelley's part. I of course agree that the Cyclopædia is worth its own article. If I haven't written much on the List page by way of introduction, it is because the material here can provide it. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A separate article would lovely, if there are the secondary sources for it. I myself don't have time to research them at the moment. I'd be happy to help refine the article once it is created, however. Wadewitz (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start, adding the "main article" link to the initial section.

WP:SUMMARY

suggests that the section should now be cut back a bit, letting the other article take the strain. Obviously there should be some consensus reached about that.

There is also the issue of the scope of this article. The list gives the volumes LXXXIV, XCIII, CVI, CXII, and CXIX as another five-volume set that shares the title. A simple way would be to give this article a more precise title that excluded the Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men of Great Britain. Easier said than done though, and it would in some sense be more natural to include those volumes in some form. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811131559/http://annaarmstrongmartin.books.officelive.com/default.aspx to http://annaarmstrongmartin.books.officelive.com/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]