text:
Talk:Samuel Johnson

May 2018
I have corrected a number of citation and MOS errors, and removed some text that has been added since the FA version. This article uses Summary style; when adding new text, please consider if it would better fit into a sub-article. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 * I saw that you reverted some of the changes made to the article of Samuel Johnson, some of those edits being added by me. Your justification for doing this is, as per your words, either because you haven't verified the text or because you feel the edits are not needed. It's good that you're vigilant, but I wasn't aware that the article was under special status where Wikipedia rules don't apply. Unless an article is protected, as far as I'm concerned, we can edit it and add sources without having someone verify them. On top of that, you removed content because you felt it wasn't significant, but if that's the case, you can discuss the issue, and not just remove the text. The reason why I added his height--and him being three-in-one-thousand of that stature--is because his height and "robust figure" is mentioned in the article (as it should), and if we are to know that he was tall, we can just as well know how tall he was. Not only that, but Johnson's physique is, as you must know, a topic of interest due to his mannerism and unique way of expressing himself (his tics included). On top of that, the section deals with Johnson's physical appearance. Overall, the information about his height adds substance to that insight.

 * Since I believe that you have the best interest at heart--since no Johnson reader would be anything but sensible and aim for precision--I like you to believe the same about me and anyone who invests in that article, so I'm asking you to take a second look and perhaps find a context for that information and improve the flow. Note. You also removed the sourced info about Adams remark about Johnson and you say it's a repeat, but I searched the article and I don't find this information elsewhere. Thanks. --Cei Trei (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * in fact, I kept quite a few of your edits, and I did not revert any edits because I hadn't verified them (I noted that I hadn't verified edits when cleaning up MOS and citation errors that should not be introduced to an Featured article). For example, I did not remove his height; I moved it to a footnote, because it was introduced in a way that didn't flow.  Please review the policy page at WP:OWN; after you have done that, we can discuss your edits on article talk.  The article is quite large, and uses summary style, so often, new text can be added to a sub-article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Character Sketch - Views on women
Given the Character sketch section covers his views on slavery, religion, politics and cats - it probably deserves a sentence on his view of women in society. I don't have access to the books referenced, and don't want to change the article without context, but this thesis is a good place to start -- Spacepine (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * what do you think of that source? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Masters theses are rarely good sources, unless they are widely cited in scholarship. It may be useful for other sources to use, however. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

List of works needs references
Per WikiProject Bibliographies, WP:V is applicable here as well. This needs some sort of off-Wikipedia reference to verify the names, publication dates, etc. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 19:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, WP:BIB's guidance to its members has no particular bearing: it's a local consensus for WP:BIB that binds no one else. Second, WP:BIB's scope is standalone bibliography articles (i.e. the hypothetical Samuel Johnson bibliography), not lists of works in other kinds of articles. Third, even were it relevant, the applicable phrasing there is If an entry does not have a Wikipedia article and there might be any doubt that it belongs in the bibliography, it should be cited with a reliable source that verifies its relevance (my ephasis). Most of the works there have their own article (cf. the first bullet in the list you linked to), and if you genuinely and non-POINTily believe that any of the works in that section are not relevant in a list whose inclusion criteria is "major [as opposed to minor or incidental, and also as opposed to a comprehensive list of all works] by Samuel Johnson", then please tag each such item individually including a specific (actionable!) rationale.But WP:BIB's guidelines are, as mentioned, not really relevant here. The bottom line is that all items in that list are already cited: they are implicitly cited to themselves, as they are reliable primary sources for their own existence (per WP:PSTS and WP:RS). Thus to require further sourcing (from a secondary source, say) there must be some actual additional concern, and that concern must be explicit and specific (just a is not sufficient). --Xover (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The question being, how does one verify that these titles and dates are actually accurate, especially the ones without articles, and when they aren't even mentioned in the article text? I don't see how you can just ignore WP:V. — howcheng  {chat} 20:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * One consults the primary source, as with all other information on Wikipedia that is verifiable through citation to a reliable primary source. A list of works contains no interpretive statements or novel synthesis (i.e. OR), so there is no particular need for a secondary (vs. primary) source. V in the sense you (aiui) mean it, comes into play if, for example, there is genuine dispute over authorship, or where there is genuine uncertainty about a date of publication (over and above the normal uncertainty of these dates I mean: even modern publications are often off by a year, or provide a completely bogus date at day-resolution, for marketing or logistical reasons) in a way that matters (was it written before or after an event, say: in these cases, ironically enough, the secondary sources will discuss it and thus tell us that we need a secondary source :)).Also, don't get me wrong: I'm sure there's lots of discussions to be had about that list (are the inclusion criteria too wide, too narrow, specific enough; should it be covered in prose rather than be a list; etc.), and while I'm not aware of any instances of genuine controversy there I'm also not saying it is impossible that one or more such exist. I'm only saying that the mere listing, in general, satisfies WP:V (i.e. does not apply) and any specific concerns must be dealt with individually. PS. My Wikipedia time is a bit erratic and unpredictable so I always appreciate a ping in replies so I don't forget to check back in to a discussion next time I'm online. And apologies in advance if I'm late in replyiing, for the same reason. --Xover (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the statement that the mere listing is verifiable to itself. Now if you can put links into the works at Google Books or the Internet Archive or OCLC numbers, I'm happy with that. Something to prove that the item actually exists, you get what I'm saying? — howcheng  {chat} 23:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (thanks for the ping. and apologies: dashing off this reply in a few minutes before heading out the door.) The listing isn't verifiable to itself: that would be the very definition of circular. Each individual work listed, though, is verifiable to the physical work itself. And we don't generally require existence proof for works or simple facts about that work: again, the work itself serves as a source for that. Since my plot summary example appears to be insufficient, let me add that of track listings for a CD: we don't need secondary sourcing to say that a CD contains tracks "Foo", "Bar", and "Baz". Simple facts like that can be readily found on the work itself with no specialist knowledge.We also do not place external links in the article body (I'd have to dig to check whether that's a policy or a MoS thing, but my impression is that the consensus for that is both wide and strong). I would also personally object to Google Books links as advertising for a commercial actor with a problematic record for georestrictions and really rotten bibliographic data (I'm afraid I'd be unable to characterise their observed quality there without resorting to profanity: it's pretty grim in my experience).Of the 29 works listed, 17 have Wikipedia articles. A further 6 are discussed in article prose (and, as interpretive statements, are cited there) or are adjunct to such an entry. That leaves 6 out of 29 works in the list that are only supported by an implicit primary source citation to that work itself. And so far as I know—with the caveat that Johnson is somewhat peripheral to my field—there is no controversy regarding Johnson's authorship of these works (or related issues that would require a secondary or ternary source). Thus, absent specific concerns regarding specific works, the "Major works" section is more than sufficiently cited for the purposes of WP:V. --Xover (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

"Influence on Johnson"
I have removed this section as it is undeveloped and so creates a problem of undue weight, as well as generally diluting the quality of the article. There is the problem that influences are discussed in the "Character sketch" section and elsewhere in the article but not in this new section, for example. It needs major work before it is re-added if it is to be in keeping with the article's featured article status. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is the section as written:

 * Be aware that "undue weight" is weighted against "reliable sources", not the personal views among Wikipedia editors, cf the guidelines: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
 * Normally, an Oxford University Press book by a Princeton professor is considered a reliable source, not a "dilution". The info seems relevant, scholarly, and interesting. Leanne47 (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC) — Leanne47 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * A book published by OUP is a (presumably) reliable source, but due weight is determined relative to the entire body of knowledge on the topic. --Xover (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 * The first two points are sourced only to Boswell's Life, a primary source which we wouldn't replicate in full, so a secondary source would be needed to evaluate if these were so significant as to feature in this article – if they are, they should be incorporated into the relevant bio sections, and not separated out into a new "Influbences" section. Boswell's translation of the book by Jerónimo Lobo is already covered in the article, the "book by a Princeton professor" might supplement that but not by adding a new section for the non-notable Wendy Laura Belcher and her vague argument that Boswell was "formed" by the translation from French and abridgement of Lobo's book. More detail is needed even to evaluate if something of her argument should be in the article, preferably another source commenting on anything new she's said. . . . . dave souza, talk 16:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion
Recent edits to this article are being discussed at Education noticeboard/Archive 19. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Patriotism
The article currently contains the following claim about Johnson's views on patriotism

But Johnson's statement was in fact aimed at John Wilkes (who Johnson opposed) and not Bute (who Johnson supported). As it happens, this is pretty much what the source cited by the article - Griffin's Patriotism and Poetry in Eighteenth-Century Britain - actually says. Here's the relevant quote from page 21 of Griffin:

I've tagged the claim in the main article with "failed verification" for now, but it should ideally be amended either to remove the discussion of who the target was, or to make it clear that scholars believe the line to have been about Wilkes' false patriotism. -- 86.136.14.26 (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As nobody's objected so far, I've gone ahead and changed the second sentence quoted above. It now reads: This line was not, as widely believed, about patriotism in general, but what Johnson considered to be the false use of the term "patriotism" by John Wilkes and his supporters. Johnson opposed "self-professed Patriots" in general, but valued what he considered "true" patriotism. -- 86.136.14.26 (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

New category
There is a new Wikipedia Category:Conversationalists. Would it be an impertinence to add the Doctor? 45ossington (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Taking Samuel Johnson out of context
It is very common for writers to take Johnson out of context and you see it all the time with what is arguably his most well known quote, "how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?". A quick reading of the whole Tract proves quite distinctly, that he is not at all criticizing southern slaveholders on some mythical grounds of hypocrisy. However, even though this wiki article does not go down that specious road, it still does not really clarify just what that section is all about. Johnson wrote: But there is one writer, and perhaps many who do not write, to whom the contraction of these pernicious privileges appears very dangerous, and who startle at the thoughts of England free and America in chains. Children fly from their own shadow, and rhetoricians are frighted by their own voices. Chains is undoubtedly a dreadful word; but perhaps the masters of civil wisdom may discover some gradations between chains and anarchy. Chains need not be put upon those who will be restrained without them. This contest may end in the softer phrase of English Superiority and American Obedience. We are told, that the subjection of Americans may tend to the diminution of our own liberties: an event, which none but very perspicacious politicians are able to foresee. If slavery be thus fatally contagious, how is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes? Now this article does elude to Johnson's view of England's domination over the thirteen colonies, it doesn't really clarify. The point is this: if you have a writer who is quite open about the view of England free and America in chains, and Johnson is in fact making this point, then it makes perfect sense that you hear the loudest yelps among the drivers of negroes (to use Johnson's characterization) because those on British plantations are seeing first hand what British domination looks like and they're seeing it closer than anybody else can see it. Of all the people that the British Empire dominated, nobody was more brutally treated by the British than those that Britain shipped out of Africa. So the British slave-owning citizens on those plantations were on the front lines of seeing exactly what their future looked like, Johnson is saying. And they're yelping because of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.27.34 (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree from that quote that he is not making a comment about hypocrisy. But to me it seems like he is saying that 'some people say that if we use repressive measures against the Americans, our own liberties in time will suffer, as repressive policies become normal and spread, however, those people are wrong, because slave-owners are in immediate proximity to repressive measures (slavery) and yet still yelp for liberty.' He is disagreeing that anti-liberty will spread for it has not spread to the hearts of slave-owners despite them being right next to it. Am I reading it wrong? LastDodo (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ‘elude’? Are you trying to say ‘allude’? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:3020:1C00:8DDE:44A:70AD:1E4E (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * it’s ALLUDE lmao Hhtesntwr (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Article sorely needs a bibliography
The article sorely lacks a bibliography. Is there a project/someone working on it? Gulielmus estavius (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible upgrade of article?
The article is an FA, but it was promoted in 2008, since when our FA standards have risen more than somewhat. Not that there is anything wrong with the article, but it could be better, and I'm not sure how to approach an overhaul. One doesn't want to barge in and meddle extensively with an approved FA, so how best to approach rewriting to bring the article up to current FA standards? Advice, please, colleagues. (If the consensus is that the article doesn't in fact need upgrading I'll pipe down, of course.)  Tim riley  talk   20:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 * Neither of the original main editors are still around (Malleus and Ottava); you haven't specified anything that needs to be addressed, which would be helpful. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Pre-TFA review
asked me to have a look at this before it runs at TFA next year, so here's some brief comments. I am by no means an expert on Johnson or his works, so my perspective is almost that of a lay reader. I'll make minor copyedits as I go, but larger issues I will only flag for the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * (and anyone else); I've worked my way through this; the article appears to have held up quite well for an FA this old. No glaring omissions are obvious to me. There are some issues with clarity or voice that I've noted below. I cannot fix these without access to the precise edition used here, but I don't believe any of them are serious enough to prevent this from running at TFA. A few other issues I have fixed to the best of my ability, save a lead rewrite, which I will return to. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead
I'll return to this later, but some thoughts on a first look:
 * Somewhat inconsistent use of the Oxford comma. I would prefer it be used throughout, as there are presently ambiguities
 * Overall, a somewhat brief lead for an article this weighty.
 * Also, the ordering is odd to me; information about the impact he had, in particular, is found in each paragraph.
 * Made some tweaks to the lead, with the benefit of having stepped away for some time. Happy to discuss any of it, but I believe it reflects more closely how we would structure the lead at FAC these days. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Early life and education
Vanamonde (Talk) 23:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "was put to wet nurse" strikes me as archaic, but is perhaps an EngVar issue?
 * I'm not sure about the need for scare quotes around "man-midwife"; it was unusual, but I believe not unheard of, for men to be midwives.
 * "In later life, he told stories of his idleness" This is an odd fragment, especially given the footnote and the rest of the paragraph. Clarification would seem appropriate.
 * I've removed this, as it still sticks out to me, but if anyone disagrees I will not contest it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Some redundancy in the second-to-last paragraph.

 * both of the main editors of this article (Mally and Ottava) are long gone, and I did only/can only contribute on the Tourette syndrome portions; pls feel free to address anything you are able, as the rest is outside of my realm. Unless we find someone who is versed in the rest of Johnson, I'm unsure how we will answer TFA queries ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, I will still post comments here so as to make it clear to watchers what I'm doing and why, but I'll then go ahead and attempt fixes myself if nobody picks it up. Nothing I've raised so far is a bar to TFA, in any case. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan! If you have issues on the TS portion, I have the sources and can answer (although I'll need to rummage through some very old files to find those papers). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Early career

 * "a Proposal was soon printed" very unclear what "proposal" refers to, difficult to fix without access to the precise edition of Boswell.
 * " The name Columbia, a poetic name for America coined by Johnson, first appears in a 1738 weekly publication of the debates of the British parliament in The Gentleman's Magazine." This fragment isn't sourced, and a cursory search suggests it came from our article on the Gentleman's magazine, where it is sourced only to primary sources. I've removed it pending the discovery of a secondary source.
 * Agree on this one; I don't have sources on the rest unfortunately. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's very unclear why Pope, who we're told didn't know the author of London, lobbied for a degree for Johnson.

Dictionary

 * It would be worth including a modern value for 1500 guineas.
 * "was the patron of the Plan, to Johnson's displeasure." not knowing how patronage worked, it's unclear to me why Johnson was unable to choose otherwise.
 * It strikes me as odd to place the dictionary's impact before its writing.
 * Moved. - Vanamonde (Talk) 21:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Three different time periods are used to describe Johnson's time working on the dictionary; 8, 9, and 10 years. I've reworded to omit the latter two, but if it's the first that is in fact incorrect, adjustments may be needed.

Later career/final works

 * I do not see the utility of the paragraph beginning "In February 1767, Johnson was granted a special audience". It's straight from Boswell, who in a lengthy biography could chronicle incidents like these; in a much shorter article here, I do not believe it is due weight, as it narrates nothing of significance beyond the occurrence of an audience. I will remove it when I work through my own comments, noting this here for explanation.
 * The article goes on about Johnson's views about patriotism without explaining them.

Literary criticism

 * "Johnson emphasises God's infinite love and shows that happiness can be attained through virtuous action." This fragment is, intentionally or otherwise, presenting Johnson's articles of faith in Wikipedia's voice.
 * I have linked "Spenser", but "Hooker" and "Bacon" are not previously mentioned, and ambiguous to my limited knowledge.
 * The source is regrettably ambiguous too; I suspect Bacon is Francis Bacon, but Hooker could be Richard Hooker or John Hooker (English constitutionalist), and I have no way to be sure. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Legacy

 * I'm confused by the use of the Boswell source for the statement "Above all, Boswell's portrayal of Johnson is the work best known to general readers." I hope this comes from annotations, but lacking access, I cannot verify it. Other uses of Boswell appear to be okay, some exceptions noted above. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am following your progress, and can't comment on any of the above ... out of my field ... unless someone else shows up to help, my take is do as you think best ... I can only help on the TS stuff ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done what I can, I believe, excepting the lead which I will return to with fresh eyes. I don't see anything here that is a bar to running at TFA or to continued FA status, but it would be nice if someone could clean it up. I understand that's not likely to be many people, but unless someone chooses to gift me the annotated 1986 Boswell, not much more I can do. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am fairly certain I have Boswell but in storage ... and buried under lots of other boxes of books ... planning to dig through that storage next spring (2023) for a booksale fundraiser ... can let you know then ... have you checked archive.org ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is the overabundance of editions; without matching page numbers I'd need to read the whole thing, which is quite impossible. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see :( Well, if I can locate the book next spring, I'll plow through it then ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

December 9 edits
Most of the additions here seem to be trivia, and they introduce CITEVAR issues. I would support a revert. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Samuel Johnson


text:
Valerius Maximus

Valerius Maximus was a 1st-century Latin writer and author of a collection of historical anecdotes: Factorum et dictorum memorabilium libri IX ("Nine books of memorable deeds and sayings", also known as De factis dictisque memorabilibus or Facta et dicta memorabilia). He worked during the reign of Tiberius (14 AD to 37 AD).

During the Middle Ages, Valerius Maximus was one of the most copied Latin prose authors, second only to Priscian. More than 600 medieval manuscripts of his books have survived as a result.

Biography
Nothing is known of his life except that his family was poor and undistinguished, and that he owed everything to Sextus Pompeius (consul AD 14), proconsul of Asia, whom he accompanied to the East in 27. Pompeius was the center of a literary circle to which Ovid belonged; he was also an intimate friend of the most literary prince of the imperial family, Germanicus. Although he shared the same name as a prestigious family of the Republic, John Briscoe says "it is unlikely in the extreme" that Valerius Maximus belonged to the patrician Valerii Maximi. He suggests instead that he was either a descendant of the plebeian Valerii Tappones or Triarii, or earned the Roman citizenship thanks to the patronage of a Valerius of the Republic.

His attitude towards the imperial household is controversial: he has been represented as a mean flatterer of Tiberius, of the same type as Martial. Chisholm in 1911 argued however that, if the references to the imperial administration are carefully scanned, they will be seen to be extravagant neither in kind nor in number: few will now grudge Tiberius, when his whole action as a ruler is taken into account, such a title as salutaris princeps, which seemed to a former generation a specimen of shameless adulation. A quarter of a century later still, however, H J Rose claimed that Valerius "cares nothing for historical truth if by neglecting it he can flatter Tiberius, which he does most fulsomely".

Chisholm also maintained that the few allusions to Caesar's murderers and to Augustus hardly pass beyond the conventional style of the writer's day; and that the only passage which can fairly be called fulsome is the violently rhetorical tirade against Sejanus.

Work
The style of Valerius's writing seems to indicate that he was a professional rhetorician; and his writing represents much of the worst rhetorical tendencies of the Silver Latin age. Direct and simple statement is avoided and novelty pursued at any price, producing a clumsy obscurity. The diction is like that of poetry; the uses of words are strained; metaphors are invented; there are startling contrasts, innuendoes and epithets; variations are played upon grammatical and rhetorical figures of speech.

In his preface, Valerius intimates that his work is intended as a commonplace book of historical anecdotes for use in the schools of rhetoric, where the pupils were trained in the art of embellishing speeches by references to history. According to the manuscripts, its title is Factorum ac dictorum memorabilium libri IX (shorter title Facta et dicta memorabilia), "Nine Books of Memorable Deeds and Sayings." The stories are loosely and irregularly arranged, each book being divided into sections, and each section bearing as its title the topic, most commonly some virtue or vice, or some merit or demerit, which the stories in the section are intended to illustrate.

Most of the tales are from Roman history, but each section has an appendix consisting of extracts from the annals of other peoples, principally the Greeks. The exposition exhibits strongly the two currents of feeling which are intermingled by almost every Roman writer of the Empire—the feeling that the Romans of the writer's own day are degenerate creatures when confronted with their own republican predecessors, and the feeling that, however degenerate, the latter-day Romans still tower above the other peoples of the world, and in particular are morally superior to the Greeks.

The author's chief sources are Cicero, Livy, Sallust and Pompeius Trogus, especially the first two. Valerius's treatment of his material is careless and inaccurate in the extreme; but in spite of his confusions, contradictions and anachronisms, the excerpts are apt illustrations, from the rhetorician's point of view, of the circumstance or quality they were intended to illustrate. And even on the historical side we owe something to Valerius. He often used sources now lost, and where he touches on his own time he affords us some glimpses of the much debated and very imperfectly recorded reign of Tiberius; as well as some fragmentary information on Hellenistic art; and a revealing glimpse into the early imperial consensus on the need for the orderly logic and stability of the ancient Roman religion, in a politically unsettled world.

Legacy

The collection of Valerius was much used for school purposes, and its popularity throughout the Middle Ages is attested by the large number of manuscripts in which it has been preserved: indeed, B. G. Niebuhr went so far as to claim that it was then "the most important book next to the Bible". Like other schoolbooks it was epitomised: one complete epitome, probably of the 4th or 5th century, bearing the name of Julius Paris, has come down to us; also a portion of another by. Only in the Renaissance, however, did it enter the central Latin curriculum in unabridged form, and it is then that its influence was arguably at its peak. Dante for example used Valerius for details in his account of the generosity and modesty of Pisistratus.

Although in the manuscripts of Valerius a tenth book is given, which consists of the so-called Liber de Praenominibus, this is the work of some grammarian of a much later date.

Editions and translations
Editions by C. Halm (1865), C. Kempf (1888), contain the epitomes of Paris and Nepotianus. New editions have been produced by R. Combès (1995-) with a French translation, J. Briscoe (1998), and D.R. Shackleton Baily (2000) with an English translation. Recent discussions of Valerius' work include W. Martin Bloomer, Valerius Maximus and the Rhetoric of the New Nobility (Chapel Hill, 1992), Clive Skidmore, Practical Ethics for Roman Gentlemen: the Work of Valerius Maximus (Exeter, 1996), and Hans-Friedrich Mueller, Roman Religion in Valerius Maximus (London, 2002).

A translation into Dutch was published in 1614, and was read by Rembrandt and other artists (and their patrons), stimulating interest in some new subjects such as Artemisia drinking her husband's ashes.

600 manuscripts of Valerius have survived, 800 when counting epitomes, more than any other Latin prose writer after the grammarian Priscian. Most manuscripts date from the late Middle Ages, but 30 predates the 12th century. The three oldest manuscripts are the authoritative sources for the text:

 * Burgerbibliothek, Bern, Switzerland, n°366 (manuscript A).
 * Laurentian Library, Florence, Italy, Ashburnham 1899 (manuscript L). Both A and L were written in northern France in the 9th century and share a common source.
 * Royal Library, Brussels, Belgium, n°5336 (manuscript G). It was probably written at Gembloux Abbey (south of Brussels) in the 11th century. Briscoe says that G has a different parent from A and L, as several mistakes shared by A and L are not found in G.

title: Valerius Maximus


text:
David Garrick

David Garrick (19 February 1717 – 20 January 1779) was an English actor, playwright, theatre manager and producer who influenced nearly all aspects of European theatrical practice throughout the 18th century, and was a pupil and friend of Samuel Johnson. He appeared in several amateur theatricals, and with his appearance in the title role of Shakespeare's Richard III, audiences and managers began to take notice.

Impressed by his portrayals of Richard III and several other roles, Charles Fleetwood engaged Garrick for a season at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane in the West End. He remained with the Drury Lane company for the next five years and purchased a share of the theatre with James Lacy. This purchase inaugurated 29 years of Garrick's management of the Drury Lane, during which time it rose to prominence as one of the leading theatres in Europe. At his death, three years after he retired from Drury Lane and the stage, he was given a lavish public funeral at Westminster Abbey where he was laid to rest in Poets' Corner.

As an actor, Garrick promoted realistic acting that departed from the bombastic style that was entrenched when he first came to prominence. His acting delighted many audiences and his direction of many of the top actors of the English stage influenced their styles as well. During his tenure as manager of Drury Lane, Garrick also sought to reform audience behaviour. While this led to some discontent among the theatre-going public, many of his reforms eventually did take hold. Garrick also sought reform in production matters, bringing an overarching consistency to productions that included set design, costumes and even special effects.

Garrick's influence extended into the literary side of theatre as well. Critics are almost unanimous in saying he was not a good playwright, but his work in bringing Shakespeare to contemporary audiences is notable. In addition, he adapted many older plays in the repertoire that might have been forgotten. These included many plays of the Restoration era. Indeed, while influencing the theatre towards a better standard he also gained a better reputation for theatre people. This accomplishment led Samuel Johnson to remark that "his profession made him rich and he made his profession respectable."

Early life
Garrick was born at the Angel Inn, Widemarsh Street, Hereford in 1717 into a family with French Huguenot roots in Languedoc, Southern France. His grandfather, David Garric, was in Bordeaux in 1685 when the Edict of Nantes was abolished, revoking the rights of Protestants in France. Grandfather Garric fled to London and his son, Peter, who was an infant at the time, was later smuggled out by a nurse when he was deemed old enough to make the journey. David Garric became a British subject upon his arrival in Britain and later Anglicised his name to Garrick. Sometime after David Garrick's birth the family moved to Lichfield, home to his mother. His father, a captain in the army, was a recruiting officer stationed in Gibraltar through most of young Garrick's childhood.

Garrick was the third of seven children and his younger brother, George (1723–1779), served as an aide to David for the remainder of his life. The playwright and actor Charles Dibdin writes that George, when on occasion discovering his brother's absence, would often inquire "Did David want me?" Upon Garrick's death in 1779, it was noted that George died 48 hours later, leading some to speculate that David did indeed want him.

His nephew, Nathan Garrick, married Martha Leigh, daughter of Sir Egerton Leigh, and sister of Sir Samuel Egerton Leigh, author of Munster Abbey; a Romance: Interspersed with Reflections on Virtue and Morality (Edinburgh 1797).

At the age of 19, Garrick, who had been educated at Lichfield Grammar School, enrolled in Samuel Johnson's Edial Hall School. Garrick showed an enthusiasm for the theatre very early on and he appeared in a school production around this time in the role of Sergeant Kite in George Farquhar's The Recruiting Officer. After Johnson's school was closed, he and Garrick, now friends, traveled to London together to seek their fortunes. Upon his arrival in 1737, Garrick and his brother became partners in a wine business with operations in both London and Lichfield with David taking the London operation. The business did not flourish, possibly due to Garrick's distraction by amateur theatricals. Playwright Samuel Foote remarked that he had known Garrick to have only three quarts of vinegar in his cellar and still called himself a wine merchant. He was supposedly a pupil at Sir Joseph Williamson's Mathematical School.

In 1740, four years after Garrick arrived in London, and with his wine business failing, he saw his first play, a satire, Lethe: or Aesop in the Shade, produced at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. Within a year he was appearing professionally, playing small parts at the Goodman's Fields Theatre under the management of Henry Giffard. The Goodman's Fields Theatre had been shuttered by the Licensing Act 1737 which closed all theatres that did not hold the letters patent and required all plays to be approved by the Lord Chamberlain before the performance. Garrick's performances at the theatre were a result of Giffard's help with Garrick's wine business. Giffard had helped Garrick win the business of the Bedford Coffee-house, an establishment patronised by many theatrical and literary people and a location Garrick frequented.

Professional actor
He made his debut as a professional actor on a summer tour to Ipswich with Giffard's troupe in 1741, where he played Aboan in Oroonoko at the theatre in Tankard Street. He appeared under the stage name Lyddal to avoid the consternation of his family. But, while he was successful under Giffard, the managers of Drury Lane and Covent Garden rejected him. On 19 October 1741, Garrick appeared in the title role of Richard III. He had been coached in the role by the actor and playwright Charles Macklin and his natural performance, which rejected the declamatory acting style so prevalent in the period, soon was the talk of London. Of his performance at Goodman's Fields, Horace Walpole remarked, "there was a dozen dukes a night at Goodman's Fields". Following his rousing performance, Garrick wrote to his brother requesting withdrawal from the partnership to devote his time completely to the stage. Having found success with Richard III, Garrick moved onto several other roles including Tate's adaptation of Shakespeare's King Lear and Pierre in Otway's Venice Preserv'd as well as comic roles such as Bayes in Buckingham's The Rehearsal; a total of 18 roles in all in just the first six months of his acting career. His success led Alexander Pope, who saw him perform three times during this period, to surmise, "that young man never had his equal as an actor, and he will never have a rival".

With his success at Goodman's Fields, Charles Fleetwood, manager of Drury Lane, engaged Garrick to play Chaumont in Otway's The Orphan (a role he first played in Ipswich) on 11 May 1742 while he used his letters patent to close down Giffard's theatre. That same month, Garrick played King Lear opposite Margaret "Peg" Woffington as Cordelia and his popular Richard III. With these successes, Fleetwood engaged Garrick for the full 1742–43 season.

Drury Lane
At the end of the London season, Garrick, along with Peg Woffington, traveled to Dublin for the summer season at the Theatre Royal, Smock Lane. While in Dublin, Garrick added two new roles to his repertoire: Shakespeare's Hamlet, Abel Drugger in Ben Jonson's The Alchemist (a role that earned him much acclaim ) and Captain Plume in Farquhar's The Recruiting Officer. Some of his success could be attributed to one of his earliest fans, John Boyle, 5th Earl of Cork, who wrote letters to many noblemen and gentlemen recommending Garrick's acting. His writings led Garrick to exclaim that it must have been the reason he was "more caressed" in Dublin.

Five years after joining the acting company at Drury Lane, Garrick again traveled to Dublin for a season where he managed and directed at the Smock Alley Theatre in conjunction with Thomas Sheridan, the father of Richard Brinsley Sheridan. After his return to London, he spent some time acting at Covent Garden under John Rich while a farce of his, Miss in Her Teens, was also produced there.

With the end of the 1746–1747 season, Fleetwoods' patent on Drury Lane expired in partnership with James Lacy, Garrick took over the theatre in April 1747. The theatre had been in decline for some years, but the partnership of Garrick and Lacy led to success and accolades. The first performance under Garrick and Lacy's management opened with an Ode to Drury Lane Theatre, on dedicating a Building and erecting a Statue, to Shakespeare read by Garrick and written by his friend, Dr Johnson. The ode promised the patrons that "The drama's law the drama's patrons give,/For we that live to please must please to live." Certainly, this statement could be regarded as succinctly summing up Garrick's management at Drury Lane where he was able to balance both artistic integrity and the fickle tastes of the public.

After the Woffington affair, there were several botched love affairs, including possibly fathering a son with Jane Green. Garrick met Eva Marie Veigel (1724–1822), a German dancer in opera choruses who emigrated to London in 1746. The pair wed on 22 June 1749 and were preserved together in several portraits, including one by William Hogarth. Hogarth also made several drawings and paintings of them separately. The union was childless but happy, Garrick calling her "the best of women and wives", and they were famously inseparable throughout their nearly 30 years of marriage. Garrick's increasing wealth enabled him to purchase a palatial estate for Eva Marie and himself to live in, naming it Garrick's Villa, that he bought at Hampton in 1754. He also indulged his passion for Shakespeare by building a Temple to Shakespeare on the riverside at Hampton to house his collection of memorabilia. Hogarth collaborated with Garrick on the furnishing of this temple, and their relationship to, and self-identification with, Shakespeare has been extensively examined by Robin Simon.

In September 1769 Garrick staged the Shakespeare Jubilee in Stratford-upon-Avon. It was a major focal point in the emerging movement that helped cement Shakespeare as England's national poet. It involved a number of events held in the town to celebrate (five years too late) 200 years since Shakespeare's birth. In a speech made on the second day of the Jubilee in Stratford Garrick recognized the Shakespeare Ladies Club as those who "restor'd Shakespeare to the Stage," protecting his fame and erecting "a Monument to his and your own honor in Westminster Abbey."

No Shakespeare plays were performed during the Jubilee, and heavy rain forced a Shakespeare Pageant to be called off. The Pageant was first staged a month later at Drury Lane Theatre under the title The Jubilee and proved successful enjoying 90 performances. The song "Soft Flowing Avon" was composed by Thomas Arne, with lyrics by Garrick, for the Jubilee.

Garrick would manage the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, until he retired from management in 1776. In his last years he continued to add roles to his repertoire; Posthumus in Cymbeline was among his last famous roles.

Death
Shortly before his death he worked on the production of The Camp with Sheridan at Drury Lane and caught a very bad cold. The Camp satirized the British response to a threatened 18th-century invasion by France, leading some to jokingly claim that Garrick was the only casualty of the ultimately abandoned invasion.

He died less than three years after his retirement, at his house in Adelphi Buildings, London, and was interred in Poets' Corner in Westminster Abbey. Mrs. Garrick survived her husband by 43 years, living to the age of 98.

Family
His great-grand-niece was the soprano Malvina Garrigues and her first cousin, the Danish-American doctor Henry Jacques Garrigues.

An easy, natural manner
Perhaps it was Garrick's acting, the most showy of his careers, that brought him the most adulation. Garrick was not a large man, only standing 5'4", and his voice is not described as particularly loud. From his first performance, Garrick departed from the bombastic style that had been popular, choosing instead a more relaxed, naturalistic style that his biographer Alan Kendall states "would probably seem quite normal to us today, but it was new and strange for his day." Certainly, this new style brought acclaim: Alexander Pope stated, "he was afraid the young man would be spoiled, for he would have no competitor." Garrick quotes George Lyttelton as complimenting him by saying, "He told me he never knew what acting was till I appeared." Even James Quin, an actor in the old style remarked, "If this young fellow be right, then we have been all wrong."

While Garrick's praises were being sung by many, there were some detractors. Theophilus Cibber in his Two Dissertations on the Theatres of 1756 believed that Garrick's realistic style went too far: "his over-fondness for extravagant Attitudes, frequently affected Starts, convulsive Twitchings, Jerkings of the Body, Sprawling of the Fingers, slapping the Breast and Pockets:-A Set of mechanical Motions in constant Use-the Caricatures of gesture suggested by pert vivacity,-his pantomimical Manner of acting every Word in a Sentence, his Unnatural Pauses in the middle of a sentence; his forc'd Conceits; -his wilful Neglect of Harmony, even where the round Period of a well express'd Noble Sentiment demands a graceful Cadence in the delivery."

But Garrick's legacy was perhaps best summarised by the historian Rev Nicolas Tindal when he said that:

"The deaf hear him in his action, and the blind see him in his voice."

Memorials
"I am disappointed by that stroke of death that has eclipsed the gaiety of nations, and impoverished the public stock of harmless pleasure."
 * A two-volume biography, Memoirs of the life of David Garrick, Esq. : interspersed with characters and anecdotes of his theatrical contemporaries : the whole forming a history of the stage, which includes a period of thirty-six years, was written by Thomas Davies (c. 1712–1785)
 * The Garrick Club in London, named in his honour.
 * Garrick's Temple to Shakespeare, built on Garrick's Lawn in the riverside gardens of his Villa near Hampton Court, now restored as a memorial to David Garrick and his life in Hampton, London.
 * A monument to Garrick in Lichfield Cathedral bears Johnson's famous comment:

 * A carved stone medallion, a metre or more in diameter, showing Garrick is on display at Birmingham Central Library.
 * Garrick was the first actor to be granted the honour of being buried in Westminster Abbey, in Poets' Corner next to the monument to William Shakespeare. Later Henry Irving, the first actor to be knighted, was buried beside him on the same spot. Laurence Olivier was the third to be given that honour, in 1989.
 * Cedric Hardwicke portrayed Garrick in the 1935 British film Peg of Old Drury.
 * A 1937 film called The Great Garrick, directed by James Whale, is a fictional story of how Garrick's acting skills and ego inspire the actors of the Comédie-Française to try and teach him a lesson. Brian Aherne stars as Garrick.
 * In 1969, Ian McShane played Garrick in an episode of the British television series Rogues' Gallery.
 * He appears as a character in the plays David Garrick (1864) and Mr Foote's Other Leg (2015).
 * A School House at King Edward VI School, Lichfield, is named after him.
 * The lyrics he penned for "Heart of Oak" remain, with William Boyce's music, the official March of the Royal Navy.
 * Legend has it that he was so engrossed in a performance of Richard III that he was oblivious to a bone fracture, inspiring the theatrical felicitation "Break a leg!".
 * There was a pub in Milton Keynes named after him in the Theatre District, open from 2000 and closed in 2016.
 * The Garrick Inn, reputedly Stratford-upon-Avon's oldest pub, is named after him.
 * The Garrick Bar, a Belfast pub named after him since 1870.
 * The Garrick's Head, an Urmston, Manchester pub named after him since 1830.
 * Garrick's Head pub in Bath, behind the Georgian Theatre Royal is named after him.
 * Five early Lodges of the Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes were named after Garrick.
 * David Garrick appears as an important character in the graphic novel La pièce manquante ("The Missing Play", 2023) by . The novel stars actress Peg Woffington on a quest to find William Shakespeare's missing play The History of Cardenio, with Garrick being her insistent suitor and sometime opponent, trying to get his hands on the text before she does - but, as revealed at the end, only so that he can gift it to her in an attempt to woo her.

Theatre names
Several theatres have been named after Garrick:
 * Two theatres, in London, have been named for him. The first, Garrick Theatre (Leman St) in Whitechapel opened in 1831, and closed in 1881. The second, opened in 1889 as the Garrick Theatre, still survives.
 * The Lichfield Garrick Theatre takes its name from David Garrick, as does the Garrick Room, the main function suite in Lichfield's George Hotel.
 * Two amateur dramatic theatres in Greater Manchester, the Altrincham Garrick Theatre and the Stockport Garrick Theatre (1901), also take his name.
 * The arts and theatre building at Hampton School is named after him.
 * A Community Theatre located in Guildford (north of Perth) in Western Australia, is named after Garrick. Established in 1932, the Garrick Theatre Club is the longest continually running amateur theatre in metropolitan Perth.
 * A Community Theatre located in Bonavista, Newfoundland, Canada, is named after Garrick.

Major works

 * Lethe: or, Aesop in the Shades (1740)
 * The Lying Valet (1741)
 * Miss in Her Teens; or, The Medley of Lovers (1747)
 * Lilliput (1756)
 * The Male Coquette; or, Seventeen Fifty Seven (1757)
 * The Guardian (1759)
 * Harlequin's Invasion (1759)
 * The Enchanter; or, Love and Magic (1760)
 * The Farmer's Return from London (1762)
 * The Clandestine Marriage (1766)
 * The Country Girl (1766)
 * Neck or Nothing (1766)
 * Cymon (1767)
 * Linco's Travels (1767)
 * A Peep Behind the Curtain, or The New Rehearsal (1767)
 * The Jubilee (1769)
 * The Irish Widow (1772)
 * A Christmas Tale (1773)
 * The Meeting of the Company; or, Bayes's Art of Acting (1774)
 * Bon Ton; or, High Life Above Stairs (1775)
 * The Theatrical Candidates (1775)
 * May-Day; or, The Little Gypsy (1775)

title: David Garrick


text:
Historia Plantarum

Historia Plantarum (Latin: History of/Treatise on Plants) has been used as all or part of the name of several books, which include:

 * Historia Plantarum (Theophrastus) (also called Enquiry into Plants), a book on plants by Theophrastus, written between c. 350 BC and c. 287 BC
 * Historia Plantarum (Gessner) (also called Conradi Gesneri Historia Plantarum), a book on plants by Conrad Gessner, written between 1555 and 1565, published in 1750
 * Historia Generalis Plantarum (Daléchamps), 1586
 * Historia Plantarum Universalis Oxoniensis, unfinished work by Robert Morison, first volume published in 1680, second volume completed by Jacob Bobart the Younger and published in 1699
 * Historia Plantarum (Ray), a book by John Ray, published in 1686
 * Historia Plantarum Rariorum (A History of Rare Plants), a book by John Martyn, published in 1728–1737
 * Historia Plantarum in Palatinatu Electorali, a book by Johan Adam Pollich, published in 1776–1777
 * Nomenclator ex Historia Plantarum Indigenarum Helvetiae Excerptus Auctore by Albrecht von Haller, an index (nomenclator) to his book Historia Stirpium Indigenarum Helvetiae Inchoata, published in 1768

title: Historia Plantarum