"An Inquiry into the Probable Parallax, and Magnitude of the Fixed Stars, from the Quantity of Light Which They Afford us, and the Particular Circumstances of Their Situation."
I studied extensively historical scientific original documents for several years and I tend to find my self writing very much in that style when I do anything that requires significant exposition.
Even if it's something boring like remediation of a building structural issue.
I don't think paper titles are usually pretentious, they're just dense with jargon to be terse. They're impenetrable if you don't know the jargon, but I don't agree that makes it pretentious. I don't think it's possible for a journal paper in an established field to be simultaneously precise, accessible, and unprecedented enough to be worth publishing.
This was a standard convention in 17th/18th century novels -- it's not just Defoe. A lot of authors played with this convention by describing chapters in a technically accurate but misleading fashion.
A massive proportion of all titles were this way. Take a look at fictional novels or political pamphlets some time. They're just three sentence long summaries and they're all delightful.
I think the exact opposite, its unnecessarily embellished and ornate. Makes the whole thing sound so whimsical as to not be worth reading. I don't need a fairytale title to be interested in the content.
Paper titles were pretty awesome back in the day.