Talk:Cyclopaedia of Useful Arts and Manufactures

Old and New versions of cyclopaedia
This article largely refers to the earlier, original cyclopaedia, whereas the Wiki article "Tomlinson's Cyclopaedia of Useful Arts" mostly refers to the later, heavily revised edition.

If this edition is like the later edition, it was published in several formats. (The later edition in 33 parts, or 8 volumes, or 6 volumes, or 2 volumes.) It might be useful to note in this article that it's likely other formats existed for the earlier editions, too. Unfortunately booksellers present widely varying information about publishing dates. The volumes of the later edition, at least, do not have publishing dates, probably because publishing was done incrementally. (There are changes in publishing information between the beginning and ending volumes, in my set.)

There are no citations in this Wiki article. Due to the nature of the work's publication, it would be useful if the authors described which version they have access to. (I have newer edition of the cyclopaedia, circa 1866, in 8 volumes.)

I'd really like to get consensus, here, so I'm not sure how to proceed. Some statements in this article may reflect the particular edition which the writer has to hand. Other statements are not correct, such as that the cyclopaedia was published before photography. I'm not sure what prompts the comment that it was "devised to celebrate the Great Exhibition", but the later edition was certainly not - it is explicit why the Great Exhibition material is omitted. The later edition does not just draw on British invention - although it emphasizes it. There are footnotes which make it clear that German and French sources are being drawn upon. The idea that Tomlinson's "portray people in a workshop context" is not quite clear. The later version, at least, presents many drawings of devices and manufacture which at the time were cutting edge technology. The fact that they are shown in a rural setting is simply depicting the location of the state-of-the-art. (Note strong similarities to the Diderot encyclopedia.)

The idea that Charles Tomlinson was simply the editor is probably not accurate. There's evidence from what he, himself writes, and also from the continuity of writing style, which suggests he actually wrote a substantial part of the work.

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)