ment, he preserved good health to a very unusual length of life. He died on the 25th of February, 1723, at the very advanced age of ninety-one years. He was interred with great solemnity in St. Paul's cathedral. He was modest, devout, virtuous, and unaffectedly communicative. He never printed any thing himself; but several of his works have been published by Dr. Wallis, and in the Philosophical Transactions. In the latter there are many very valuable papers by sir Christopher Wren on mechanics, op. tics, and astronomy. He improved and invented a number of instruments to facilitate the study of these sciences. At different periods, he wrote a number of important papers relative to the discovery of the longitude at sea. He first instituted the experiment of injecting fluids into the blood of animals. The merit of this discovery was the subject of a contest; which, however, was justly decided in sir Christopher's favour. This extraordinary man was also the author of an algebraical tract relative to the Julian period, and, among a variety of other performances, of a treatise on the Temple of Diana at Ephesus, and on the Mausoleum erected by the disconsolate Artemisia, to the memory of the king of Caria. Besides his peculiar eminence as an architect, it thus appears that his learning and knowledge were of surprising extent. Mr. Hooke, who was intimately acquainted with him, and very able to make a just estimate of his abilities, has comprised his character in these few but comprehensive words: "I must affirm, that, since the time of Archimedes, there scarcely ever has met in one man, in so great a perfection, such a mechanical hand and so philosophical a mind." A far greater authority than Hooke, the illustrious and immortal Newton, speaks thus of him, with other eminent men: "D. Christophorus Wrennus, eques auratus, Johannes Wallisius, S. T. D. et D. Christianus Hugenius, hujus ætatis geometrarum facile principes." The state of general literature during the reign of William III. shall be the subject of future inquiry; at present, we shall proceed to give a short account of one branch of the fine arts arts which was cultivated with success after the Revolution, and which received some benefit from his majesty's encouragement. We allude to the art of painting. It is to be regretted, that during this reign portrait-painting was so generally encouraged. In the investigation of the cause of a preference so injurious to the progressive improvement of the art, it will indubitably appear that a great variety of circumstances contribute to limit the exertions of genius to this inferior department. The personal vanity of individuals, the avaricious disposition of many artists, the state of public refinement, and even the forms of public wor ship, with a number of other causes, may tend to discourage the execution of works of high and decided excellence. While portraits please more than representations of the most interesting historical subjects, or of the sublimest features of nature, it is not to be expected that painting can flourish. Nor, while the artist is contented with remuneration for labour, will he ever aspire to embody upon canvass, with allthe happy effect of combined taste, spirit, and expression, the splendid actions which confer immortality on those by whom they were achieved. As luxury almost invariably accompanies great refinement, so, whatever prejudicial effects it may produce with respect to public morals, it in most cases contributes to the promotion of the fine arts. This is in some measure illustrated by the different reigns of Charles II. and William III. With respect to the effect of any particular form of religion upon the fine arts, it may be observed that the ornamental splendour of the Romish rites has been more subservient to their extension and improvement, than the simplicity which characterizes the exercise of the protestant faith. To what extent these observations may be supposed to apply to the period immediately after the Revolution, we shall not undertake to deterinine. Among the distinguished painters in the reign of king William, it may be proper to mention the names of sir Godfrey Kneller, Monoyer, Berchett, Riley, Closterman, sir John Medina, Van Wyck, and Woolaston. A great many other painters painters rather lived, than flourished about the same time. Mcnoyer was scarcely inferior to Van Huysum in painting flowers; his works were perhaps less exquisitely finished, but his colouring and composition were executed in a bolder style. He was educated at Antwerp as a painter of history, but his inclination induced him to prefer flowers. He went to Paris, and was received into the academy with applause. At Versailles, Trianon and Marly, he met with employment for his pencil. The duke of Montagu brought him to England, where he received very considerable encouragement. -Berchett was a native of France, and improved so rapidly under La Fosse, that before he was eighteen years of age he was employed in the royal palaces. He came to England in 1681. King William employed him in the palace which he built at Loo. Berchett painted the ceiling in the chapel of Trinity college, Oxford.-Riley has been esteemed one of the best native painters that flourished in England at this time. His talents were obscured by the fame of Kneller and the great reputation of Lely. He was humble, modest, and of an amiable character; but his diffidence, of his own talents was so great that he easily became disgusted with his own works. This was probably the source of many objections to his performances. He received instructions in painting from Fuller and Zoust; but he acquired little reputation till the death of Lely.-Closterman was a native of Osnaburg. Upon his arrival in England he painted draperies for Riley. They afterwards painted in conjunction, but Riley executed most of the heads. Among the persons of distinction whom he painted in this country were the duke and duchess of Marlborough and all their children. Ambitious of reputation, Closterman went to Spain, where he painted the king and queen, and composed several letters on the paintings in that country. As an artist, Closterman did not rise above mediocrity. His colouring was strong, but heavy, and his composition was deficient in grace.-Sir John Medina was a native of Brussels. He came to England in 1686, where he painted portraits for several years. The earl of Leven encouraged him to go to Scotland. He painted most of the Scotch nobility, and the paintings of the professors in the Surgeon's hall at Edinburgh were were executed by him: they possess considerable merit. Medina also painted historical subjects, and landscapes. The prints in the octavo edition of Milton were designed by this artist. He was knighted by the duke of Queensberry, the lord high commissioner, and was the last knight made in Scotland before the Union. John Van Wyck was a good painter of battles and of hunting pieces. His figures and horses are well executed in the style of Wouverman. The colouring of his landscapes is warm and vigorous. He painted the battle of the Boyne, the siege of Namur, and many other large pieces; but his small paintings have the most merit.-Woolaston was a native artist, and a successful painter of portraits. Of the artists who flourished in this reign, sir Godfrey Kneller is entitled to the highest reputation. Had he lived in a country where his merit would have been justly ap preciated, he would probably have acquired the fame of one of the greatest masters. The emoluments arising from the practice of his art seduced him into the fatal error of making his reputation subservient to the acquisition of wealth. His historic painting of king William has been deemed by some a favourable specimen of his very superior talents; others prefer the original sketch of it, which they conceive is execu ted with the fire and spirit of Rubens. In the latter the hero and the horse are in the heat of battle; in the former, it is the king riding in triumph, with his usual phlegm. Of all his works, sir Godfrey most valued his converted Chinese; but his portrait of Gibbons is supposed to be of still superior excellence. It has the freedom of Vandyck with the harmonious colouring of Andrea Sacchi; no part of it is carelessly executed. In general, to give greater finish to the head, he neglected the subordinate parts, so much indeed, that his dra peries often exhibit great negligence of manner. His airs of heads are graceful, notwithstanding the tasteless style of dress which prevailed in his time. There is, however, a degree of sameness in his airs, and his composition is sometimes destitute of grace and ease. Sir Godfrey Kneller was born at Lubeck, the most antient of the Hanseatic towns, about the year 1648. He was at first designed for a military life, and was sent to Leyden to learn mathematics and fortification. His inclination, however, was decidedly in favour of painting. His father acquiesced in his wishes, and sent him to Amsterdam, where he studied under Bol, and had some instructions from Rembrandt. Kneller had none of the servility of a disciple; he imitated neither of his masters. Even in Italy, he avoided all imitation. It has, however, been imagined that the style of some of his performances bears a resemblance to that of Tintoret; and even the manner of Rubens is said to be discoverable in some of his works. If the latter is any where perceptible, it is probably in the equestrian figure of king William. It has been asserted that this painting is an imitation of Rubens's design of the ceiling for the banquetinghouse, which was in sir Godfrey's possession. Kneller and his brother came to England in 1674, without intending to reside here, but to return through France to Venice. He painted the portrait of the duke of Monmouth, who was so pleased with the performance, that he engaged the king his brother to sit to Kneller, at a time that the duke of York had been promised the king's picture by Lely. Charles proposed that both artists should draw him at the same time. Lely had the advantage of choosing his own light; sir Godfrey, however, performed his task with superior facility, expedition and effect. Lely very honourably did justice to the abilities of his competitor. This success fixed Kneller in England, where he soon acquired very great reputation. Charles II. treated him with great distinction, and king William' with still more. For the latter he painted the beauties at Hampton Court. He was knighted by him, and received an additional present of a gold medal and chain. He drew for his majesty a portrait of the Czar. Many of his portraits in the gallery of Admirals are worthy of the great subjects whom they represent. The last of sir Godfrey's public works was the Kit-cat Club, who, although generally mentioned as a set of wits, were, |