All of the above-mentioned hooks, and many of their successors in the same class, were more or less unsystematic, or even chaotic, in form, and crude in substance. The problem of co ordinating or systematizing all the branches of science, which they in some measure at least sought to answer, was. however, a legitimate one, and the attempt to solve it was frequently re peated down to recent times. Bacon's (Menlo plete) Insteuratio Magna has been reckoned as the first of these attempts to be made with adequate method and upon genuine philosophical princi ples. But that work can scarcely be described as encyclopedic, even in this sense. \lore ob viously within this class are numerous works. chiefly German, which appeared mainly in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and which were, for the most part, written from the point of view of some particular philosophical system, especially the Wolflion, Kantian, and Hegelian. Such, for example, are Eschenburg's Lehrbuch der Wissenchaftskunde (1792) ; Krug's l'ersoch ciner syslematischer Encyclopedic der Wissen seheftcn (1796-98) ; Schmidt's Allgemeine En cyclopedic u-nd Methodologie der Wissenschaften (1810) ; Georg Wilhelm Friedrich lIegel's En cyclopedic der philosophisehen Wissenschaften (1817).
The transition from this ancient type to the modern was due to a change in form which oc eurred about the middle of the seventeenth cen tury, and which originated, doubtless, in the de sire to make books of this kind more easy of consultation. This change, namely, was from the more or less logical arrangement of the material by subjects to its alphabetical arrangement by key-wo•ds, names, or special topics. In other words, the encyclopedia was assimilated to the dictionary, and from that time on the word 'dictionary' (or 'lexicon') has been freely used as the title of encyclopedic works. The change, moreo•er, was not confined to the form, for the alphabetical arrangement inevitably led to (if its adoption did not spring from) a change in the purpose and character of encyclopedic com pilation—namely, that from the exposition of the system of human knowledge to the mechanical arrangement of its contents. The encyclopedia became, in this line of its development, a work of reference in the strict sense of that word— a work for occasional use, in which any partic ular topic or item of information desired can he found under the proper word in an alpha betical vocabulary. This practical aim and this method—which, as was said above, were exempli fied by the Lexicon of Suidas—have, however. been adopted by modern encyclopedias in varying degrees. On the one hand there has been a ten dency to approach more and more closely to the dictionary type by increasing the number and variety of the vocabulary words (topics), and correspondingly subdividing the material con tained in the book; and on the other a tendency lin which the influence of the ancient pedagogi cal type is obvious) to restrict the vocabulary and combine the material as much as possible under comprehensive titles. In its extreme form the
former has given rise to the modern 'encyclopedic dictionary,' and such works as the Grand Dic tionnaire unirersel do II_Verne sleepy of Pierre Larousse (for both sec below). and the latter to encyclopedias which are little or nothing but aggregations of monographs. These two types— subdivision of material and the collection of it in monographs—are distinct, though no very exact elassitication of existing encyclopaedias can he based upon them, since most of them conform in varying degrees to both. It may be said, how e‘1'1'. that encyclopedia-makers incline in prac tice, as well as in theory, more and more toward the adoption of the former as better suited to the practical needs of scientific and literary work ers. and as, in fact, essential to the adequate presentation of the vast accumulations of mod ern science, history, and biography. In the de velopment of this movement the distinction be tween the dictionary and the encyclopirdia has occasionally been obliterated by the inclusion in the vocabulary of the latter of too many of the common words of the language; it is generally recognized, however, that this should be restrict ed to those words which can properly be made the theme of encyclopaedic articles rather than of mere definitions. As regards the material includ ed in modern works, no general statement can he made that would not be subject to numerous exceptions. Some pay most attention to the sciences and arts, others to history, geography, biography, etc. Others are restricted to some one subject or special group of subjects. Another important characteristic of modern methods is the employment of a large corps of specialists. both as compilers and as editors. Some degree of cooperation of this kind is found in ninny of the eneyelopashas of the seventeenth and eigh teenth centuries, notably in the great work of Diderot and D'Alembert (for a description of which see below) ; but in the nineteenth century it was developed into an elabora'e system. neces sitated especially by the rapid advance and multi plication of the special sciences. No good general eneyelopaslia. at least, is now possible whirl' does not include in its editorial staff a small army of men of seienee, historians, theologians.