Talk:Antiquarian/Archive 1

Untitled
The list of antiquarians is probably a bit redundant given the category "antiquarians" which contains essentially the same names. I am, however, still a little too nervous to go ahead and delete it. Can anyone give me a tiny push? --PRiis 03:10, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The reason it seems redundant is because this page is missing the negative connotation of "antiquarian", as identified by Momigliano and others, namely the fascination with remnants of a particular time period without any attempts to connect these to the larger historical whole. These are the people one often meets at re-enactments, who have the uniform of a Civil War soldier down pat and all the troop movements down pat, for example, but dont know what circumstances in Europe brought so many Irish and Germans into the Union army.

--Rck 05:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the origin of the word?

Interwikis
Could somebody please check the Interwikis. Most of them seem to lead to pages that deal with traders or sellers of antiques and used books. I´ve changed the german IW already. Doesn´t hit the point exactly, as an de:Altertumsforscher deals usually with the Ancient history, but, as I think, is anyway better than linking to a bookseller. --Kallewirsch (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Have done French (though, again, not absolutely ideal). GrindtXX (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment re antiquarian books
I believe the term "Antiquarian" was and is used today in the "rare Book world" as a book pre-1800 which is an arbitrary line at a time when "stereotype printing plates" were first used and moveable type was replaced. The term should only be used when referring to books printed before 1800 and NOT to books of a collectable and fashionable attempt at producing books in the later 19th and 20th centuries in a similar style. [Comment added to article by IP 86.166.199.20; moved to Talk by GrindtXX (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)]


 * This may well be true – but (a) it needs a reference (not "I believe"); and (b) it doesn't belong in this article, which is explicitly NOT about antiquarian books and bookselling. It would be better in the relevant section of Bookselling. GrindtXX (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antiquarian. 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/20141017204828/http://worcestermag.com/2014/01/30/worcesters-best-kept-secret-american-antiquarian-society-belongs-everyone/20529 to http://worcestermag.com/2014/01/30/worcesters-best-kept-secret-american-antiquarian-society-belongs-everyone/20529

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Pejorative use
The section on pejorative use of the term (or pejorative attitudes to antiquarians) seems very long. It seems that in the early modern period, a lot of historians looked down on antiquarians for focusing on facts and evidence, rather than trying to spin a narrative to support a particular ideological point. And now that historians have come round to the antiquarian way of doing things, some of them still look down on Antiquarians for... reasons. Do we really need to spend about a quarter of the article saying that? Is the pejorative attitude of historians towards antiquarians really that significant? Iapetus (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems fine to me, I must say. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me too. (Declaration of interest: I added most of it.) Outside the fairly narrow circles of the antiquaries themselves, antiquaries were widely perceived from the 17th to 19th centuries as stock figures of fun. Brown 1980 is almost entirely about this, and it's a recurrent theme of Sweet 2004 and other scholarly literature. I think it's worth noting, explaining, and documenting. Equally, the continuing pejorative use of the term by modern scholars seems worth noting. I don't think the length of the section is excessive: if it seems to occupy a disproportionate amount of the article, I'd say the solution is to expand the rest. GrindtXX (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Antiquary
I know everyone is sick of hearing this, but I assert, "Antiquary" is the noun, for a person, and "antiquarian" is the adjective. "An Antiquarian" is not something which any (suitably tetchy and pedantic) Antiquary would wish to be called. The emphasis in the noun is on the Ant-, not on the -tiq-, or even on the -quary (unless you are adopting the rhyming peculiarities of W.S. Gilbert). It's so easy when you get the hang of it! Eebahgum (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)