men than Chambers. Diderot had made his contribution in the field of medicine and biology, and D'Alembert in mathematical science and celestial mechanics. ³ But if Chambers was not an original thinker, he showed a great interest in science in attempting single-handed so tremendous a task, and completing it more or less competently, and also later in collaborating with John Martyns in an abridged translation of the philosophical history and memoirs of the Royal Academy of Science at Paris. ⁴

It might be said at the very outset that Chambers ⁵ treats many subjects as they would be treated in an encyclopedic dictionary, rather than an encyclopedia. This accounts to a great extent for the lack of a point of view. It is very apparent especially in his treatment of the subject of history. ⁶ Here is merely set down a short definition and classification of history into ancient and modern, sacred and profane, universal and particular. Whatever philosophy of history may have been current at the time is not revealed in his account. Chambers' own philosophy can only be inferred from a brief statement in his address to the King that "there is a time for every nation to arrive at its height, and the uppermost place on the terrestrial ball is held successively by several states." But that is of no importance at all in his treatment of the sciences, except that there is a tendency to describe in great

-13-