Talk:Commonplace book

blogs as commonplace books
I've removed this analogy. Technically on Original Reseach grounds. But more so because this idea needs further exploration to be valid. Blogs are a lot more than commonplace books, it doesnt make sense other than superficially. Its ok to draw comparisons when describing somthing for the sake of making it more clear to the reader rhetorically, but to draw a comparison and say blogs are a modern commonplace book is original research that needs supporting arguments. Stbalbach 02:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The user replacing it specifies "external links" as his reference but I just see one guy's blog. Ashi b aka tock 21:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I was the one who initially removed it, then changed my mind and restored it. There is no doubt that there are people drawing an analogy between blogs and CPB's, it's a very common analogy currently in use "out there" - in the end, we report what people do, and people are using this analogy. Right or wrong is not the issue, we can at least report on its usage. If the article had some opinion about this analogy, then we would need a scholarly source.--Stbalbach 22:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the intervening time period, it's now much easier to make the case for blogs and personal websites being used as digital commonplaces. A number of examples in the wild have been enumerated at https://indieweb.org/commonplace_book. --Snark35 (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Pronoun
Any particular reason for the list of pronouns? Why specify a short list of who used comonplace books when it could just state "literate people"?

It seems especially ridiculous to state "humanists" when presumably all "-ists" would have used them.


 * Probably because those are the types of commonplace books that are extant. Stbalbach 16:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I also found use of the word "humanists" confusing. The types of people listed preceding "humanists" are defined by what they *do* (i.e. study, teach, do medical research) which makes sense in the context of talking about the commonplace book as one of their tools.  "Humanists" defines people of a certain ethical ideology--what does that have to do with the function of a commonplace book?  Is the use of a commonplace book particularly defined by one's world perspective?  To me this would be akin to writing "many blogs are maintained by writers, professors, lawyers, editorialists, and Republicans/Democrats" in an article about blogs.  True though it may be, it confuses the reader into thinking that the subject being written about is somehow ideologically specific when it is not. - BHunt 1/20/06


 * The intended sense of the word humanist is likely the first one - "a scholar or academic in the Humanities", which accords with the other items in the list. Zipzipzip (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For an explanation, see Renaissance_humanism. There are quite a few different uses of Humanist: see Humanism_(disambiguation). But I see the term "humanist" is not used. I will link "rennaissance scholars" to that first page. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Commonplace
Commonplace was an emo-rock band from Benbrook, TX that existed from 1998-2003 The members consisted of Ben Maikell (guitar), Bill Holcomb (bass), Brandon Beauchamp (vocals/drums), Courtney Key (guitar), Cameron Hall (drums) Commonplace site 

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.9.8.21 (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Classical tradition
I removed the "globalise" tags because i) the classical tradition is indeed mentioned in the article, and ii) that tradition is somewhat different from the specific early-modern/modern tradition described here. The latter, it seems to me and this article would indicate, stands alone as a distinct entity. — scribbling  woman  15:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes
I believe, as an example, that Conan Doyle's detective made use of commonplace books frequently in his stories. Anyone want to add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.38.211 (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A thing of the past?
In the main text it says "Commonplace books (or commonplaces) were a way to compile knowledge". But from what I get "Commonplace book techniques" are still used today by authors or everyday people to organize content and help them to digest reading. Any opinion?Knippfisch (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Notebook ?
Can someone explain to me why this article is not part of Notebook ? What is the major difference between Notebook and Commonplace book ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.27.112 (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * They are very different subjects and should not be merged. Notebook refers to a physical medium. Commonplace book refers to a way of compiling information (similar to the meaning of anthology, collage, personal knowledge base, etc.). Biogeographist (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As far I can see, there are three aspects to ideal renaissance/reformation commonplace books: first, a topic structure (lots of different methods, including Malecthon's, but the structure was allowed to emerge organically as new topics were added if the existing ones were not applicable); second, the contents or examples themselves; third, the moralistic or other lessons that you would draw from the example (e.g., some judgement on why the example is interesting or useful). If there is no topic structure (tituli and topica) or moral lesson/trope (sententiae), you just have a scrapbook or notebook  (exempla) rather than any loci communes, indeed. Another aspect is that it was a tool for active reading: you made it your habit to commonplace any excellent passages as you read. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree profoundly. See Ann Moss Printed Commonplace Books and the Structuring of Renaissance Thought. I understand this article requires a complete rewrite and rethink of its relationships to all knowledge gathering and dissemination - including that of wiki.

I understand there has been a fundamental misunderstanding of what commonplace books are about. Moss writes discussing Thomas of Ireland 1306 "Working the system in this way, the reader is constantly engaged in a process of lateral thinking which extends his conceptual horizons and his ability to juxtapose words and ideas".

Seneca "We should imitate bees and we should keep in separate compartments whatever we have collected from our diverse reading, for things conserved separately keep better. Then, diligently applying all the resources of our native talent, we should mingle all the various nectars we have tasted, and turn them into a single sweet substance, in such a way that, even if it is apparent where it originated, it appears quite different from what it was in its original state.

Note bppks, commonplaces, dictionaries encyclopaedias are a continuum of knowledge gathering, collating, retrieval, reassembly creation and dissemmination tools and as such should be seen as constituen parts of evolving wholes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.139.166 (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I doubt that this article "requires a complete rewrite and rethink" as the IP editor claimed above. And it is very obvious that a commonplace book, defined in the article as "a way to compile knowledge", is related to other ways of compiling knowledge (simply by being included in the set of "ways to compile knowledge"). Biogeographist (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Commonplaces are the medieval wikipedia!
And arguably are far superior knowledge/information gathering dissemination and creation tools! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.139.166 (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In my view, commonplace books were/are more like a personal wiki than they were/are like Wikipedia. Commonplace book, Personal knowledge base, and Personal wiki are already reciprocally linked, so the observation above does not add anything to what is already in the article. Biogeographist (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)