men than Chambers. Diderot had made his contribution in
the field of medicine and biology, and D'Alembert in mathe-
matical 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 appar-
ent 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, uni-
versal 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-