| Резюме: | The last of the great Enlightenment encyclopedias, Charles Joseph Panckoucke’s <em>Encyclopédie méthodique</em> was originally conceived as an innovative revision of the <em>Encyclopédie</em> and the <em>Supplément</em>. Arranged in a series of subject-specific dictionaries, it began to appear in 1782 and was completed 50 years later, boasting 203 volumes of text and plates produced by many eminent editors and contributors. Kathleen Hardesty Doig’s book is the first to compare the genealogy of the <em>Méthodique</em> with its predecessors as a means to understanding Panchoucke’s original vision for his work. Through careful examination of each volume of the <em>Méthodique</em>, the author explores for instance:<br/> • how Diderot’s materialist, anti-clerical articles were scrupulously preserved;<br/> • how new contributions on religious topics, written by a renowned French theologian, provided a counter-balancing apology of Catholicism; <br/> • how subjects were augmented or radically transformed, particularly in the sciences where articles reflect groundbreaking research in chemistry and medicine; <br/> • how these changes illuminate the editors’ original goal of an encyclopedia designed to present information in an accessible format to specialists and amateurs alike. <br/> <br/> Introduction<br/> 1. Mathematics and physics<br/> 2. Medicine, anatomy and chemistry<br/> 3. Agriculture and the natural sciences<br/> 4. History and geography<br/> 5. Theology, philosophy, grammar and literature<br/> 6. Law and political economy<br/> 7. The military arts<br/> 8. The fine arts, architecture and music<br/> 9. The mechanical arts<br/> 10. Miscellaneous subjects<br/> Conclusion<br/> List of dictionaries of the <em>Encyclopédie méthodique</em><br/> Bibliography<br/> Index<br/> <br/> ‘This deeply researched work explores the construction of Panckoucke's innovative enterprise. It sheds new light on the emergence and development of the disciplines as well as their respective boundaries and interrelations. The breadth of Kathleen Doig’s scholarship is remarkable.’<br/><br/> Robert J. Morrissey, University of Chicago
|
|---|