Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 8.djvu/208

Rh 198 ENCYCLOPAEDIA lettre de cachet to Lebreton s to seize the plates and the MSS., but did not find, says Barbier, even those of volume iii., as they had been taken to his own house by Diderot and one of the publishers. The Jesuits tried to continue the work, but in vain. It was less easy, says Grinmi, than to ruin philosophers. The Dictionnaire de Trevoux pro nounced the completion of the Encyclopedic impossible, and the project ridiculous (5th edition, 1752, iii. 750). The Government had to request the editors to resume the work as one honourable to the nation. The Marquis d Argeuson writes, 7th May 1752, that Mine, de Pompadour had been urging them to proceed, and at the end of June he reports them as again at work. Volume iii., rather improved by the delay, appeared in October 1753 ; and volume vii., completing G, in November 1757. The clamours against the work soon recommenced. D Alembert retired in January 1758, weary of sermons, satires, and intolerant and absurd censors. The parliament of Paris, by an arret e, 23d January 1759, stopped the sale and distribution of the En- cyclope die, Helvetius s De V Esprit, and six other books; and by an arret, Gth February, ordered them all to be burnt, but referred the Encyclopedic for examination to a commission of nine. An arret du conseil, 7th March, re voked the privilege of 1746, and stopped the printing. Volume viii. was then in the press. Malesherbes warned Diderot that he would have his papers seized next day ; and when Diderot said he could not make a selection, or find a place of safety at such shot notice, Malesherbes said, &quot; Send them to me, they will not look for them there.&quot; This, according to Mine, de Vandeul, Diderot s daughter, was done with perfect success. In the article Pardonner Diderot refers to these persecutions, and says, &quot; In the space of some months we have seen our honour, fortune, liberty, and life imperilled.&quot; Malesherbes, Choiseul, and Mme. de Pompadour protected the work ; Diderot obtained private permission to go on printing, but with a strict charge not to publish any part until the whole was finished. The Jesuits were condemned by the parliament of Paris in 1762, aui by the king in November 1764. Volume i. of plates appeared in 1762, and volumes viii. to xvii., ten volumes of text, 9-1 OS pages, completing the work, with the 4th volume of plates in 1765, when there were 4250 sub scribers. The work circulated freely in the provinces and in foreign countries, and was secretly distributed in Paris and Versailles. The general assembly of the clergy, on 20th June 1765, approved articles in which it was con demned, and on 27th September adopted a memoire to be presented to the king. They were forbidden to pub lish their acts which favoured the Jesuits, but Lebreton was required to give a list of his subscribers, and was put into the Bastille for eight days in 1766. A royal order was sent to the subscribers to deliver their copies to the lieutenant of police. Voltaire in 1774 relates that, at a petit souper of the king at Trianon, there was a debate on the composition of gunpowder. Mme. de Pompadour said she did not know how her rouge or her silk stockings were made. The Due de la Vallicre regretted that the king had confiscated their encyclopedias, which could decide everything. The king said he had been told that the work was most dangerous, but as he wished to judge for himself, he sent for a copy. Three servants with diffi culty brought in the 21 volumes. The company found everything they looked for, and the king allowed the confiscated copies to be returned. Mme. de Pompadour died 15th April 1764. Lebreton had half of the property in the work, and Durand, David, and Briasson had the rest. Lebreton, who had the largest printing office in Paris, em ployed 50 workmen in printing the last ten volumes. He h id the articles set in type exactly as the authors sent them in, and when Diderot had corrected the last proof of each sheet, he and his foreman, hastily, secretly, and by night, unknown to his partners in the work, cut out whatever seemed to them daring, or likely to give offence, mutilated most of the best articles without any regard to the consecu- tiveuess of what was left, and burnt the manuscript as they proceeded. The printing of the work was nearly finished when Diderot, having to consult one of his great philosophi cal articles in the letter S, found it entirely mutilated. He was confounded, says Grimm, at discovering the atrocity of the printer ; all the best articles were in the same con fusion. This discovery put him into a state of frenzy and despair from rage and grief. His daughter never heard him speak coolly on the subject, and after twenty years it still made him angry. He believed that every one knew as well as he did what was wanting in each article, but in fact the mutilation was not perceived even by the authors, and for many years was known to few persons. Diderot at first re fused to correct the remaining proofs, or to do more than write the explanations of the plates. He required, accord ing to Mme. de Vandeul, that a copy, now at St Petersburg with his library, should be printed with columns in which all was restored. The mutilations began as far back as the article Inteudant. But how far, says Roseukrantz, this murderous, incredible, and infamous operation was carried cannot now be exactly ascertained. Diderot s articles, not including those on arts and trades, were reprinted in Naigeon s edition (Paris, 1821, 8vo, 22 vols.). They fill 4132 pages, and number 1139, of which 601 were written for the last ten volumes. They are on very many subjects, but principally on grammar, history, morality, philosophy, literature, and metapliysics. As a contributor, his special department of the work was philosophy, and arts and trades. He passed whole days in workshops, and began by examin ing a machine carefully, then he had it taken to pieces and put together again, then he watched it at work, nnd lastly worked it himself. He thus learned to use such compli cated machines as the stocking and cut velvet looms. He at first received 1200 livres a year as editor, but aftenvard.s 2500 livres a volume, besides a final sum of 20,000 livres. Although after his engagement he did not suffer from poverty as he had done before, he was obliged to sell his library in order to provide for his daughter. De Jaucourt spared neither time, trouble, nor expense in perfecting the work, for which he received nothing, and he employed several secretaries at it for ten j-eara. To pay them he had to sell his house in Paris, which Lebreton bought with the profits derived from De Jaucourt s work. All the pub lishers made large fortunes ; their expenses amounted to 1,158,000 livres, and their profits to 2,162,000. D Aleni- bert s &quot;Discours Preliminaire,&quot; 45 pages, written in 1750, prefixed to the first volume, and delivered before the French Academy on his reception, 19th December 1754, consists of a systematic arrangement of the various branches of knowledge, and an account of their progress since their re vival. His system, chiefly taken from Bacon, divides them into three classes, under memory, reason, and imagination. Arts and trades are placed under natural history, supersti tion and magic under science de Dieu, and orthography and heraldry under logic. The literary world is divided into three corresponding classes erudits, philosopkes, and beaux esprits. As in Chambers s Cyclopedia, history and biography were excluded, except incidenfally ; thus Aristotle s life is given in the article Aristotelisme. The science to which an article belongs is generally nacied at the beginning of it, references are given to other articles, and the author s names are marked by initials, of which lists are given in the earlier volumes, but sometimes their names are subscribed in full. Articles by Diderot have no mark, and those inserted by him as editor have an asterisk prefixed. Among the contributors were Voltaire, Kuler,