Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexicon

The Big full Universal Lexicon Aller knowledge managed and arts appeared in the years 1732-1754 and includes approximately 63,000 pages, making it the most comprehensive encyclopedic project in Europe in the 18th century. In 64 volumes, and another four supplementary volumes around 284,000 alphabetical entries are listed. The articles are by around 276,000 references linked, however, lead the many references to emptiness. How detailed the title indicates, the lexicon has the ambition to list all known knowledge from all subject areas. Here, the tracks lists 33 areas of knowledge, which form three major classes: biography ( about 120,000 entries ), Geography ( 73,000 ) and expertise ( 91,000 ). Was published in the Universal Lexicon of booksellers and publishers Johann Heinrich Zedler (1706-1751), according to which it is often called Zedlersches lexicon or even Zedler. It is now known that the major part of the article was plagiarized. Already on publication of the lexicon allegations of this kind against publisher Zedler had been raised.

• 2.1 dictionaries and encyclopaedias with a similar claim
• 2.2 encyclopedias on the book market in the early 18th century
• 2.3 encyclopedias as translations

• 3.1 objective
• 3.2 The programmatic prefaces
• 3.3 Nature and scope of Article
• 3.4 focus
• 3.5 Dedication Policy
• 3.6 Visualization on the Universal Lexicon

• 4.1 Official reaction
• 4.2 Unofficial reaction

• 5.1 Division of labor and specialization of the individual authors
• 5.2 " democratization of knowledge "
• 5.3 Problems with the selection of the knowledge verzeichnenden
• 5.4 Knowledge networking and knowledge veraltendes
• 5.5 plagiarism

Employee

Anonymity of the employee

The names of Zedler's employees are largely unknown. In the preface to the first volume, they are presented as the "Nine Muses ", which had jurisdiction as specialists in different areas of knowledge for the products from these areas. The announcement that with the completion of the work the employee would be named, was not implemented. It's doubtful only because of more than 20 years of development time, the number of employees actually only nine was, probably had more authors with the lexicon. Precisely because of the plagiarism allegations against Zedler (see the section on plagiarism) would be an identification of the employees interesting. On the other hand, it was in the 18th century quite normal that the lexicographers remained anonymous; a roll-call identifying individual items was also unusual if, in addition to the editor other employees had helped write the lexicon. This seems to be since the 18th century have been the case in all major lexicon projects. However, the Universal Lexicon is the first work in equal cooperation of several scholars who worked probably largely autonomous, and was not only an author, the unnamed helpers were on hand under the leadership. Another new feature is that the division of labor was not organized alphabetically, but the working areas of the Muses were distributed according to themes. This was a " sensible distribution of work to professionals [ reached ] ." However, there was apparently no detailed " editorial concept, so that words of similar lemmas that were inevitably disrupted by the alphabetical order, not have been linked together ." The blame for this probably also the scope of the project and the duration of its completion. From the identity of the employee, little is known. So far only the main editors and a few informants are known. It is likely that all editors ' closely connected with the universities of Halle and Leipzig " were. The main editors who coordinated the work on the lexicon, were:

• Jacob August Franckenstein (1689-1733) ( Volumes 1-2 )
• Paul Daniel Longolius (1704-1779) (Volumes 3-18 )
• Carl Günther Ludovici (1707-1778) (Volumes 19-64 )

About other employees almost nothing is known. Henry Winkler is secured as the author of the " most medical products ", Friedrich August Müller is " very likely " the author of articles on philosophy. Lorenz Christoph Mizler (1711-1778) wrote in his own words mathematical articles. In the debate about the appearance of the lexicon Johann Heinrich Roth and Johann Christoph Gottsched cited by other publishers as employees. Both in relation to public position and filed a declaration in which she testified not to have anything for the " Zedler " written.

Employees as " muses "

The designation of employees as " Muse" secures the authors not only their anonymity and personal protection against allegations of plagiarism. Nicola Kaminski sees a well-considered approach to keep the accusation of plagiarism also on the overall plant. Through the talk of the Muses, which stretches from Volume 1 of a leitmotif through the prefaces, the discussion about the copying of the " Zedlerschen Muses " from the legal struggle for privileges violations field is laid "on the poetry and the liberal arts field." This also means that Johann Peter von Ludewig (1668-1743) in the first preface, not of " unauthorized reprint, privilege violation ", but rather of " Origin Alien / Copien " or " imitate " (see section The programmatic prefaces ). Thus, the cribbing " legalized " by legitimizing it with the poetics of imitation and tradition of imitatio discourse.

Historical Context

See also: History and development of the Encyclopedia # Systematic compendia of all sciences and arts

Dictionaries and encyclopaedias with a similar claim

A similar claim as the Universal Lexicon, namely comprehensively gather knowledge from all fields of science and systematize long before the 18th century had a lot of encyclopedic works. However, they were not written usually in the vernacular, but in Latin, and thus targeted solely at a circle of polymath. Want to Zedler's times there were works of this kind, such as the 1698 published Lexicon Universale Historico - Geographico - Chronologico - Poetico - Philologicum by Johann Jakob Hofmann ( 1635-1706 ), or also more effectively powerful, highly successful Encyclopaedia Cursus Philosophici by Johann Heinrich Alsted (1588-1638), which was not yet organized alphabetically.

Encyclopedias on the book market in the early 18th century

The Universal Lexicon was not the first alphabetical encyclopedic in German language. As a prototype of the alphabet of German-speaking Konversationslexikon the 1704 published Reale State and Newspaper Lexicon " Encyclopedia Huebner " are known as, and Johann Franz Budde ( 1667-1729 ) General Historical Lexicon ( Leipzig edition 1709). Especially in the field of particularistic lexicons, that is the limited on a subject encyclopedias, took the number of products on the market works in the first half of the 18th century by leaps and bounds: in 1741 alone, the publisher Johann Friedrich Gleditsch 20 different encyclopedias in the program. " Encyclopedias and encyclopedic works were obviously a literary genre, with its shops had [sic ] make, accordingly, there was no lack of competition between publishers ," which is probably one reason why the appearance of the Universal Lexicon considerable resistance encountered.

Encyclopedias as translations

However, many German -language encyclopedias of the 18th century were translations of French or English works, which have been revised and expanded to meet the needs of a German readership. Included the creation of Budde's General Historical Lexicon ( 1709) on the basis of Louis Moréris ( 1643-1680 ) 1674 erschienenem encyclopedic work Le Grand Dictionnaire Historique and Pierre Bayle ( 1647-1706 ) Dictionnaire historique et critique. Even the real state and newspaper Lexicon ( " Huebner Lexikon") (1704) consists mostly of translations, but is not advised as to the General Historical Lexicon in the preface. These translations were essentially as plagiarism as the Universal - Lexicon (see Section plagiarism), but by they appeared in a different language, they do not constitute competition on the book market: "Access to foreign-language encyclopedias protected from litigation, and the national coloring brought the customer. So it was the local and not foreign encyclopedias publishers who attacked Zedler with allegations of plagiarism. Zedler defended himself by arguing that the written-off products themselves are compilations and have no one complained of the French publishers of the output works themselves. "

Conception

Objective

The title page of the Universal - Lexicon in his detailed presentation still stands in the tradition of the late Baroque period. The term "universal " refers to the claim on completeness of content. Although the Universal Lexicon was not the first German -language lexicon, yet it was revolutionary from its conception it: The date in encyclopaedias accumulated knowledge of individual scientific and non- scientific areas should be assembled in a factory. The services of Universal Lexicons are therefore especially in its scope and the equal representation of knowledge as well as general knowledge. The official objective is given, " the record and the spread of learned knowledge managed to convey ." This is consistent with the goal of enlightenment in general: "As one of the best means to spread knowledge and thus to promote the happiness, the representatives of the Enlightenment appeared the edition of encyclopedic works that the totality of the sciences or some of their disciplines in a compact form convey to the reader. " In contrast to the encyclopedia, which was created for the interested, but not specifically educated reader, the Universal lexicon to appeal especially to the learned laity. The scientific role should be in the foreground. Carl Günther Ludovici speaks in this context of the planning of a systematic register in order to present the knowledge in a certain order can. Despite this scientific focus the Universal Lexicon had, as the title says, a universal claim, in the sense that everything should be recorded at the beginning of the 18th century known knowledge. In the preface to the first volume is expressly pointed out that the Universal Lexicon represent not only academic knowledge, but also wants to cover everyday knowledge areas such as crafts, home economics or business with. For this reason, a wider knowledge is represented in the Universal - Lexicon, as this would now expect from a lexicon (see also section problems in the selection of the verzeichnenden knowledge).

The programmatic prefaces

The preface to the first volume is written by the jurist Johann Peter von Ludewig and contains explanations for the overall plan of the work to the circumstances of the development and to the prevailing legal situation. In Volume 19, Carl Günther Ludovici introduces as the new editor. More prefaces follow in Volume 21 and 23 and suggest that prefaces were planned in every second band. In these Ludovici talks about basic considerations when it comes to the meaning of the lexicons. The following improvements, additions, announcements and messages. Specifically, Ludovici set itself the goal to put the item in a more balanced relationship to each other and to make extensive references. In particular, the historical articles to be expanded. Ludovici calls not just the mere mention of the writer, but also the publish their writings. The often exaggerated length of some articles he wants to avoid the theological articles should have no more preaching like shape. New the requirement living notables, scholars, and artists can be seen in the lexicon. Because of this extensive project, the readers are encouraged to band 19 to either submit articles, which is extremely unusual for that time. Furthermore Ludovici calls for the improvement of genealogical and geographical references, because the lexicon is to remain constantly up to date ( see also section Knowledge networking and veraltendes knowledge).

Nature and scope of Article

When comparing individual items together, you realize quantitative disproportions. The longest article of the Universal - Lexicon is the Wolffian philosophy with 349 columns. In the same volume still follows an article on Christian Wolff (1679-1754) even with a circumference of 128 columns. This circumferential differences can be explained by the fact that the Universal Lexicon project was initially not yet created so great. Clearly, this can be gauged from the fact that the first twelve letters 18 and the remaining 14 letters are devoted to 46 volumes. Especially in the first volumes the article are not designed quite confusing, the mere fact that is visible subdivisions, both by objective and formal criteria, not resorted to. The literature data do not follow the end of the article, but spread over the whole text. This makes it quite difficult for the reader to find specific information within the article. However, the article design changed over time. There is a breakdown by historical and systematic access. Roman numerals divide the text and headings are used first. Moreover, from now on, see the references at the end of the compressed article. In particular, the representations of people have changed. A distinction is made in the course of time between biography and literature part. Nor can notice a significant shift in emphasis. Compared with communications on the individual circumstances, lifestyle habits and family circumstances are now moving their writings by authors in the focus. The literary work seems more important than the person behind it. In addition to German terms the Universal Lexicon has a wealth of Latin keywords, somewhat less frequently on Greek terms. It turns out that often the technical language of each individual discipline is taken as the Universal Lexicon wanted to meet academic standards. The trend can be observed: the later a volume was published, the rarer the items are under the Latin word, unless that has been held in the specialized terminology of the Latin expression. The trend towards more and more references, so as to guide the seeker in every possible way the article is clearly noticeable, as is the trend towards ever more Volkssprachigkeit; this is particularly evident in the persons name. These are only latinized, later played in the local language.

Focus

Priorities can be in the areas of geography, genealogy, biography and philosophy find. In the preface to Volume 32 Carl Günther Ludovici emphasizes the importance of genealogy and pedigrees. The proportion of biographical article is compared to modern general works much higher. The biographies are performed partly to their limits. Such persons are mentioned, of which only the title of the work is known and is reported. As of volume 19 also living persons are listed. As striking exceptions are to be mentioned Johann Peter von Ludewig, who wrote the preface to the first volume of the Universal Lexicon, and the editor Carl Günther Ludovici; both of which were already included in volume 18. Also, is already an article on Louis XV. find (Vol. 18, starting in column 872 ). In the field of philosophy can be stated that the presentation is oriented to the Wolffian philosophy; this applies to both the text of the articles as well as for the selection of keywords. In the second part of the lexicon emerge terms that were only relevant by Wolff's German writings in the philosophical jargon.

Dedication policy

Zedler's major projects such as the Universal - Lexicon required the support of the ruling nobility. How Zedler himself and his competitors knew was the main support of the protection reprint in the form of printing privileges. From the Emperor Charles VI. got Zedler for the Universal Lexicon a privilege for the Empire. In return, he and his wife Elisabeth Christine was dedicated the first volume. The second volume ( 1732) is dedicated to Friedrich Wilhelm I, who as king of Prussia gave him a privilege for Prussia; there was the for the publication of the Universal Lexicon's critically important place of printing hall, where Zedler had to dodge after him were the coveted privilege of Electoral Saxony and thus the most important in the early 18th century publishing city, Leipzig, been denied as a place of printing. With Anna Ivanovna, Tsaritsa of Russia ( Volume 4, 1733), the King of Great Britain George II (Vol. 5, 1733) and Louis XV. , King of France ( Volume 6, 1733), is the Monarchical prominence, even on Europe also represented in the following volumes. Son of Frederick William I were given two dedications, once as the Prussian Crown Prince ( Volume 13, 1735) and then in Volume 25 (1741 ), when he had become as Frederick II King of Prussia. This gorgeous sounding name of with Russia over Europe beyond monarch served to convince the reader that it constitutes a sublime project of international prestige. The other volumes are dedicated to princes and nobles of Saxony and the surrounding area and should the Universal Lexicon probably secure local support. How important is shown by the official reaction of the Leipzig publisher on the appearance of the Universal Lexicon.

Visualizations in the Universal Lexicon

The visual representations are quite sparse in the Universal - Lexicon already at first glance. This finding is not surprising when one considers the conceptual cues from Ludewigs in the preface to the first volume. There he gives the key term " Lexicon " as " dictionary " again. Thus, the focus is clearly directed to a textual representation. The following visualizations are to be found in the Universal - Lexicon:

• Function diagrams

This form is most commonly found in the Universal Lexicon. The diagrams are mainly restricted to simple geometric figures and usually no longer than ten lines of print. Often you will find these directly into the column, rarely they are presented separately with their own numbering. In principle, such diagrams are used quite economical and simple. An exception to this is the illustration for " Empire Day in Germany ". Particularly interesting here is that even the seating arrangements of the members should be visualized with the help of this scheme. The claim of an exact reproduction, which also includes the hierarchy of individual representatives provide with is clearly present.

• Illustrations

Tangible illustrations, which have the task to clarify items of property through their representation are, first locate the 18th band. What is striking is the handling of these viewpoints. They are made compatible so that they can be inserted into the column. This is not to own productions, but to acquisitions of Christian Wolff (1679-1754) work Allerhand Quick tests, thereby more accurately Erkäntnis of nature and art, the path is gebähnet ( 3 vols, Halle 1721-1723 ). These illustrations represent in relation to the whole work rather represents a rarity

• Pedigrees and family trees

Pedigrees and family trees are by far the most striking images in the Universal Lexicon. They are added in the form of fold-out panels on the articles. It is also no longer just about a schematic illustration, but by a partly ornate presentation they receive an aesthetic quality.

• Dedikationstafeln

Between 1732 and 1750 every band has an impressive Dedikationstafel on which the person is shown, which is also dedicated to the band. It is a quite common practice at that time, which is intended both to increase attention to the publication and on the other ensure the printing privilege.

• Engravings

All volumes open the lexicographical main part with an engraving. Regarding the motives mainly mythological and allegorical figures can be seen in the pictures. Similarly, the representations are enriched with symbols that come from the field of scientific activities. Total of 15 different motifs reveal that are used for the time being without regularity, and then from 27 band again with a greater regularity. From then on, a new theme is chosen after each fourth volume.

Reactions

Official reaction

Even before he nachsuchte for privileges for Prussia and the Reich, Zedler requested for the Universal - Lexicon on September 13, 1730 privilege for the Electorate of Saxony at the Higher Consistory in Dresden, the Saxon government. The Leipzig publisher Gleditsch and Fritsch Heir to an objection against the application Zedler. These themselves have several Partikularlexika on the market and fear that Zedler let write off of these. Fritsch has some concern that going off from the general laid by him Historical Lexicon (1726) by Buddeus, on which he had a privilege to ten years. This appeal is upheld and Zedler prohibited the printing and distribution in the Electorate of Saxony, when he transcribe from the Historical Lexicon, a violation of this policy shall be punished with 300 thalers penalty and recovery of previously printed volumes. Although receives Zedler 1731 for the Universal Lexicon two printing privileges, but only for Prussia and for the kingdom, not for Saxony. When he appears with the first band to Michaelmas fair in 1731, the entire run will be confiscated. However, by the Prussian privilege he achieved that he only a " reduced " fine of 100 thalers have to pay and must serve its Saxon Pränumeranten from Halle. Zedler 1732 can the first volume once again along with the second volume (1733 then once ) Print to the Pränumeranten but still be able to supply. Fritsch and his heirs complain again and rich this time a twenty -page list with about 3600 articles a depreciated. Through the legal action of its competitors Zedler have no other choice than to avoid the pressure to Halle, where Johann Peter von Ludewig, author of the preface to the first volume, not only Chancellor of the University, is also director of the orphanage printing.

Due to the increased production costs in financial need Zedler is on March 7, 1735 announced its intention to hold a lottery books. But the books lottery also does not create cause the money, so that he eventually must pledge the volumes 13 and 14. When he is threatened with bankruptcy, takes over in 1737 Johann Heinrich Wolff further financing ( and the line ) of the Universal - Lexicon.

Benefits the project that in 1738 Fritsch privilege expires on the Historical Lexicon and also the pressure and open sales in Saxony, the authorities are no longer in the way. The Commission proposes books even to Zedler's side, as the volumes 17 and 18 of the Universal - Lexicon by Johann Ernst Schultze be reprinted from the yard.

Unofficial reaction

The beginning makes a fake ad in the Lower Saxony new papers by scholars matters of 19 December 1730., Where a " Pränumerations - fraud - Lexicon " is announced, published by the infamous fictional publisher Pierre or Peter Marteau. Coined to Zedler and his lexicon, although without direct entry or dive even here most of the later allegations in compressed form. You will be taken in the years 1732/33 by several polemics. Zedler is accused of the Pränumeration, that is associated with the prepayment of buyers Subskriptionsverpflichtung of the complete works, whether fraud, as Zedler could not meet the announced scope of eight volumes and as a financial " margin " will due. Zedler was not a trained bookseller and his muses no scholar, but " alert Collectores ". They are " tinker ", by copying the " cost on other people to make a name " wanted.

1732 appeared the first non- official response to the outrageous companies in the form of a Pasquills: The charlatanism The bookstore, which carries the same expiration and by Pfuschereyen, Praenumerationes, Auctiones, reprinting, Trödeleyen on. From Zwey the action vultures unpartheyisch untersuchet. The already present in the display allegations here continue and provided with examples. Thus, the Universal Lexicon was " carefully written from other Lexicis together." In addition to the Historical Lexicon of Buddeus would Zedler Muses " the Musicalische, heroes and heroines - ingleichen the mythological and much other lexicons " advertised. The very first article to the letter " A" is a compilation of the Historical Lexicon and the General Lexicon of Arts and Sciences of Johann Theodor Jablonski. The charlatanism stated also that " banned post-print explicitly asserted in no laws, either in Jure Civili, nor Canonico " Although the, whether by law ie not regulated, although it was " a foregone conclusion that a Every book that which the manufactured it, peculiarly entitled ".

The 1733 published polemics One sincere patriots insonderheit The Betrügereyen the books Pränumerationen discovered Unpartheyische Gedancken some sources and Wirckungen the decay of ietzigen book action, Exhibiting, and is also proven fact that the unauthorized reprint unprivilegirter Books occupies all rights zuwiederlauffender theft sey the allegations of the two previous writings on again. She may still focused on Zedler and his lexicon, but builds the rudimentary existing already in the charlatanism legal argument with a claim to universality from.

Unlike the official reaction of the books Commission and the upper consistory, which ended no later than 1738 with the expiry of Fritsch's privilege to the Historical Lexicon and the ban reprinting of the Universal Lexicon by Johann Ernst Schultze, the discussion of the emphasis in the polemics continued. The first step since 1733 made ​​the Universal Lexicon itself In the article reprint those books in Volume 23 of the emphasis will be sentenced content. However, it is in the article itself to an emphasis, namely the chapters 19 to 29 of the candid Gedancken.

This in turn attacks the 1742 published polemic Unpartheyisches concerns worinnen from all natural, divine and human civil and criminal rights and laws is clearly ausgeführet and proved; that the unauthorized reprinting of privileged and unprivilegirter books A gross and shameful, all divine and the human rights and laws contrary lauff forming crimes, and infamous theft sey (published in Cologne in " Peter Marteau "! ) on again. As the first of the polemics they treated the emphasis alone and sentenced him not only content with legal arguments, but attacks the " Reprint gesture " of Zedler's Muses on performative, by itself is a reprint from the candid Gedancken and the article reprint those books. However, had no demonstrable legal consequences of polemics. They are nevertheless valuable in that they provide ( not exactly impartial ) evidence that and how the Zedlerschen have plagiarized Muses and to what extent this was already aware of the contemporary readers.

Today's meaning

Today, the Universal Lexicon is mainly used as a historical source that reasonably accurate is by its design community about the state of knowledge in various fields to set priorities for the outgoing 17th century and the first half of the 18th century. In addition, the employment is with this first major encyclopedia in German language which conceptual innovations, but also what legal, financial and publishing political problems brought such a project with it. It is noticeable that many issues and problems with which the publisher Zedler was struggling in the first half of the 18th century to win today, in the age of digitization and dissemination of knowledge in the Internet current once again. " Dictionaries and encyclopaedias the early modern period are for the trust in the power of knowledge ", this observation shows how current employment with the Universal Lexicon is the so-called information age today, because the question of " faith in the power of knowledge" is more relevant today than ever.

Division of labor and specialization of the individual authors

The Universal Lexicon is the first lexicon, which expressly does not come from a scholar, but is created by the cooperation of several authors. For the 18th century, it is a quite revolutionary idea that it is not a universal scholar, called a polymath, systematized knowledge, write down and thus makes available to others, but each contribute many employees their specialized knowledge to a large project. In addition, readers are repeatedly asked to participate in the lexicon, by sending in articles, which mainly affects articles on people and places. This takes place to an understanding with the audience. " What an essential step in the tradition of scholarly knowledge management will be getting at is the encyclopedia as a collective enterprise, as the division of labor entering an on the fullness of the knowable. " Thus, the Universal Lexicon demonstrate the principle of a " far -flung, now really public knowledge management ".

" Democratization of knowledge "

The Universal Lexicon is written not in Latin but in the vernacular German, and thus appeals to a wide audience, rather than to a small circle lateinischsprachiger scholar. Since the lexicon, as we now know, taken over a large part of his information from other encyclopedias literally, that is plagiarized, has, it could appear at a very low price and thus has found a very wide circulation. Therefore, one can speak of a " democratization of knowledge ", since knowledge was made widely accessible for the first time. For this reason, the Universal Lexicon certain of its conception it with essential objectives of the Enlightenment match (see Section objective ).

Problems in the selection of the knowledge verzeichnenden

The preoccupation with the articles of the Universal - Lexicon shows that the selection of lemmas, the design and the content of the items are still fragmented or from today's perspective strange. Since it is caused by the transition from the universal Glossary Glossary of claim to actually record all the knowledge that is found in the Universal Lexicon, for example, Recipes or alchemical knowledge or superstition. To find, for example, under the heading "Cancer, Latin Cancer " is not only a detailed description of the animal, but also a number of recipes and tips on how cancer can be prepared. On the other hand, the Universal Lexicon has recorded for the first time living persons, which is to be regarded as unusually modern. This shows that in the first half of the 18th century was not yet clearly defined what information belong in an encyclopedic work and like an encyclopedia entry must be reasonable designed and built. The question of relevance was therefore not yet been answered conclusively.

Knowledge networking and knowledge veraltendes

Especially under the editorship of Carl Günther Ludovici, great emphasis is placed on the reference structure within the lexicon, so that the knowledge on the one hand to use, ie alphabetically organized, illustrated, on the other hand linked to the maximum extent with each other ( " linked " ) is. So should be the aim of networking knowledge, although from today's perspective becomes even more primitive, but in fact at least vordenkt by their conception contemporary forms of knowledge networking. Due to the intended breadth of knowledge (including living by taking people) was the Universal Lexicon soon before also modern problem that knowledge quickly outdated. This problem was, it seems, not in the consciousness of the author or the publisher. This is one reason why in the long run, the Universal Lexicon, despite its pioneering design and structure was less influential than many smaller project. Here the advancing technology has brought decisive advantages, since even very large amounts of knowledge with relatively little effort on the cutting edge can be kept.

Plagiarism

Particularly controversial was with the publication of the Universal Lexicon's the question of plagiarism. Today we know that the allegations Zedler against were not groundless, since a large part of the lexicon of plagiarism composed ". The Universal Lexicon is a gigantic compilation performance from yet unknown sources " The development of the lexicon is not yet so far advanced that could be told exactly what other encyclopedias were plagiarized. What is certain can be said that the following encyclopedias were probably almost completely taken over:

• Christian Wolff (1679-1754) Mathematical Lexicon of 1716
• Johann Georg Walch (1693-1775) Philosophical Lexicon (1726)
• Nicolas Lémerys Materials Encyclopedia (French 1716, German 1721)
• Benjamin Heder ego (1675-1748) Thorough Lexicon Mythologicum
• Johann Theodor Jablonski (1654-1731) General Lexicon of Arts and Sciences

That the Universal Lexicon despite this plagiarism on a grand scale and the associated legal difficulties could be fully realized, is mainly because there were no developed copyright regime in the 18th century and the anonymity of the author has been maintained. Conceptually, the Universal - Lexicon project faced a problem, before ultimately all lexicons are, as they have to rely on the (complete as possible ) gathering of knowledge to other sources. This problem is still relevant today, but has now the complete identification of literal meaning from acquisitions or established as a scientific standard.