Thanks to Ritchie for his comments and citations: >It is Einbinder's view that the motive for Britannica >was not as [J. L.] Speranza suggests, an attempt to >mimic Diderot's *intellectual* achievement, but rather >--plus ca change--to make a groat or two by copying >something that seemed to be selling well [in Paris]. >Thus an engraver, a printer and William Smellie >cobbled together the first edition. Other writers take a >view closer to [Speranza]. I like your 'plus ca change', what a good example of a negationless negation. One such writer seems to be the blogger at blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/<WBR>2007/06/the-an who unashamedly writes: "The EB was founded in 1768 by members of the Scottish Enlightment who were the “Web 2.0″ of their time" Perhaps I should spell that 'EnglightENment' and tell that perhaps another interesting source seems to be, voila, the article for "Scottish Enlightenment" in, voila, the "EB" online: _http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-261867/Scottish-Enlightenment_ (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-261867/Scottish-Enlightenment) "Those who date the end of the Scottish Enlightenment to the beginning of the French Revolution in 1789 are vulnerable [like Superman to kryptonite?] to the fact that Smith lived until 1790 and Hutton died in 1797." Since the EB was first published in 1768, when France was still a monarchy, I grant that it's a controversial issue. "The Scottish Enlightenment" seems to become, to me, one of those hateful phrases, as it were, a hateful phrase, if I were to read, repeatedly, of "The Argentine Enlightenment". If you look at the wikipedia reference list for 'Scottish Englightenment" it seems that whoever was enlightened _and_ Scottish was part of it -- which makes the denomination, as R. Paul will agree, 'tautological'. Cheers, JL ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com