p
R
E
F
A
e
E·
U
TILITY
ought to be the principal intcntioD of every publicatioD.
Wherever this intention does not plainly appear, n either the books
nor their authors have the finallefl: claim lo the approbation of maukind.
To diffllíe the knowl "dge of Sci('ncc, is the profe{fed ddigll of the fol–
lowing work. ''''hat m ethod s, it may be a{ked, have the compilers em–
ployc:d to accomplifh this d efign ? Not to lUtJJtion original articles, they
have had n:collríe
lO
the bdl books upon almofl: every íiLbj .-él:, txtraéted
the ufeful parts, and rej eétcd whatever appeared tritting or
leí.~
interefl:–
ing. lnfl:ead of diGnel11beling the Sciences, by
attempting.totreat them
intelligibIy Und(T a multitude of t echnicaI terms, they have di.gefl:ed the
principIes of every fcience in the form of íyfl:ems or difl:inét treatifes, and
explained the terms as tht'Y oceur in the order of the alphabet, with re–
ferences to the fci ences to which they belong.
As this plan cliffers ·fi·om that of all the Diétionaries of Arts and Scien–
ces lútherto publifhed, the compilers tlúnk it nece{fary to mention what
they imagine givt's it a fuperiority over the common method. A few
words wilI an[wer this purpofe . ''''hoever has had occaGon to confult
Chambers, Owcn ,
&c.
or <:!ven the voluminous French
EllcycJopedie,
will
have ducovered the foJly of attempting to communicate Ícic:nce under the
various t echnicaI terms arranged in an alphabeticaI order. Such un at–
tempt is repugnant to the very idea of fcience, which is a conlleéted fe–
ries of conclufions deduced fi'om felf-evident or previoully diícovaed prin–
cipIes.
It
is well
if
a man b e capabl e of comprehcnding the p rincipl t s
and relations of the ditferent parts of fcience, w h en laid before him in
on e uruntcrrupted chain. But wlll'r e is the
m.anwho can learn th :: prin–
cipies of a ny Ícience from a Diétionary compiled upon the plan hitherto
adopted ?
\Ve
wilI, howrver, vel1ture to afl :rm, that any 111al1 of ordi–
nary parts, tnay,
if
he chuC s, lea rn the principIes of AgTiculture,
0['
A–
fl:rol1omy, of Botany, of Chellúfl:ry,
(J'c. &c.
from the::
EN
C
y
C L O P IE D 1 .\
BRIT ANN I CA .
I N
the execution of tllis exten(jve and
nlllltjfa¡'iou~
und"rt'lki¡' g, lhe
Compilers laboured unde¡' lIIany dif:ldv antagcs, pHrtly arifit:g
froúl
the
nature of the 'work, and partly owing to the following circLLlnflancc.
T HR