alled an Encyclopaedia by {282} Morhof,
though the thumbs and fingers of the two hands will meet over the length of
its one volume. There are more small collections; but we pass on to the
first work to which the name of _Encyclopaedia_ is given. This is a
ponderous _Scientiarum Omnium Encyclopaedia_ of Alsted,[455] in four folio
volumes, commonly bound in two: published in 1629 and again in 1649; the
true parent of all the Encyclopaedias, or collections of treatises, or works
in which that character predominates. The first great _dictionary_ may
perhaps be taken to be Hofman's _Lexicon Universale_[456] (1677); but
Chambers's[457] (so called) _Dictionary_ (1728) has a better claim. And we
support our proposed nomenclature by observing that Alsted accidentally
called his work _En_cyclopaedia, and Chambers simply Cyclopaedia.

We shall make one little extract from the _myrrour_, and one from
Ringelberg. Caxton's author makes a singular remark for his time; and one
well worthy of attention. The grammar rules of a language, he says, must
have been invented by foreigners: "And whan any suche tonge was perfytely
had and usyd amonge any people, than other people not used to the same
tonge caused rulys to be made wherby they myght lerne the same tonge ...
and suche rulys be called the gramer of that tonge." Ringelberg says that
if the right nostril bleed, the little finger of the right hand should be
crooked, and squeezed with great force; and the same for the left.

{283}

We pass on to _the_ Encyclopedie,[458] commenced in 1751; the work which
has, in many minds, connected the word _encyclopaedist_ with that of
_infidel_. Readers of our day are surprised when they look into this work,
and wonder what has become of all the irreligion. The truth is, that the
work--though denounced _ab ovo_[459] on account of the character of its
supporters--was neither adapted, nor intended, to excite any particular
remark on the subject: no work of which D'Alembert[460] was co-editor would
have been started on any such plan. For, first, he was a real _sceptic_:
that is, doubtful, with a mind not made up. Next, he valued his quiet more
than anything; and would as soon have gone to sleep over an hornet's nest
as have contemplated a systematic attack upon either religion or
government. As to Diderot[461]--of whose varied career of thought it is
difficult to fix the character of any one moment, but who is very
frequently taken among us for a pure