Page:Supplement to the fourth, fifth, and sixth editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica - with preliminary dissertations on the history of the sciences - illustrated by engravings (IA gri 33125011196181).pdf/13

Rh Chambers’s notions of what was required by the nature of his undertaking were confined and arbitrary; as in thinking, that an Encyclopædia should only contain the conclusions, without any of the demonstrations of mathematical, or experimental details of physical science. But, with all its defects, whether of plan or execution, his work must be considered as the production of a mind of no ordinary reach and vigour; as well as one of the greatest and most useful literary undertakings ever accomplished by a single hand. How much has it not done through its numerous editions, and the other works of the same kind to which it gave rise, to stimulate the curiosity, to enlarge the inquiries, and to diversify the knowledge of the mass of mankind!

The popularity of the Cyclopædia remained undisturbed by any rival work, for a considerable period; but the success with which it was frequently republished, and the progress of knowledge in some departments in treating of which it was from the first defective, by holding out a prospect of encouragement to newer undertakings, led at length to a series of Universal Dictionaries, modelled upon its plan. The title which Mr Chambers chose, in preference to the more classical one of Encyclopædia, was however laid aside; nor was the latter assumed, in any British work of this class, till the appearance of the Encyclopædia Britannica.

The first of the works alluded to, was Barrow’s New and Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, consisting of a folio volume, published in 1751; to which a supplemental volume was added in 1754. Its only claims to public notice were founded upon an enlarged number of articles on mathematical subjects, on the mechanical arts, and on naval affairs; to make room for which, church history and the scholastic parts of Chambers’s work were excluded. A garbled translation of D’Alembert’s preliminary Discourse to the French Encyclopédie, was prefixed, in two portions, to these two volumes, without the slightest acknowledgement or notice of the original.

This was followed in 1754, by a New and Complete Dictionary of Arts and