in fome inftances be fubftituted for them. The two principal rea-
fons which fupport this opinion are, firft, the minutenefs o f fome
ancient pieces o f workmanfhip, which are to ;be met with in the
cabinets of the curious : the parts o f fome of thefe are fo final],
that it does not appear at prefent how they could have been executed
without the ufe o f magnifying glafles, or of what ufe they
could have been when executed, unlefs they were in poffeflion o f
glafles to examine them with. A remarkable piece o f this kind,
a feal with very minute work, and which to the naked eye appears
very confufed and indiftina, but beautiful when examined with a
proper lens, iiL defcribed “ Dans l’Hiftoire de l’Academie des
Infcriptions,” tom. i. p. 333- The fecond ar§ument ^founded
on a great variety of paffages, that are to be feen m the works of
Jamblichus, Pliny, Plutarch, Seneca, Agellius, Pifidias, &c. From
thefe paflages it is evident that they were enabled by fome mftru-
ment, or other means, not only to view diftant objeas, butalfo to
magnify fmall ones; for i f this is not admitted, the paflages appear
abfurd, and not capable of having a rational meaning applied to
them. I lhall only adduce a Ihort paffage from Pifidias, a chnf-
tian writer o f the feventh century, Tot (/.sMovTot w? 'Sta. horilpis
cv flJtarse* “ You fee things future by a dioptrum:”- now we
know of nothing but a profpeaive glafs or fmall telefcope, whereby
things at a diftance may be feen as i f they were near at hand,
the circumftance on which the fimile was founded, ft is a o
clear, that they were acquainted with, and did make ufe o f that
kind o f microfcope, which is even at this day c°mm° n' ^ ° ld ™
our ftreets by the Italian pedlars, namely, a glafs bubble filled
with water. Seneca plainly affirms it, Liter* quamvis rmnut*
et ohfcurce per vitream pilcm aqua' plenum, majores clanorefque
q J . Hb. , » P . 7- " L ™ , though m,„»te
and obfcure, appear larger and clearer through a glafs bubble
filled with water.” ' Thofe who with to fee further evidence concerning
the knowledge o f the ancients in optics, may confult
Smith’s Optics, Dr. Prieftley’s Hiftory o f Light and Colours
the Appendix to an Effay on the firft H i o f Natural
Philofophy by the Rev. Mr. Jones, Dr. Rogers’s. Differtation on
the Knowledge of the Ancients, and Mr. Duten’s Enquiry into
the Origin of the Difcoveries attributed to the modems..
The hiftory o f the microfcope, like that of nations and arts,
has had it’S brilliant periods, in which it has Ihone with uncom-
fnlendor and been cultivated with extraordinary ardour;
S e fe have been fucceeded by intervals marked with no drfco-
very and in which the fcience feemed to fade away or at leaft
lie dormant, till fome .favorable circumftance, the difcovery o
a new objea, or fome new improvement m the mftruments
of obfervation, awakened the attention o f the curious, and animated
their refearches. Thus, foon after the invention of the
• rtCrrvne the field it prefented to obfervation was culuvated by
“ S m in r ™ »»» “ ' id“ d e” 7
mce , u;florv bv the difcoveries they made with tilts in-
fcarce »uy objed fo «confide,ahie.
H K „ ot feme,hing to invite the curious eye B h
« , no, is there my, which, when properly examined, will not
amply repay the trouble, of inveftigation.
I flail firft fpeak of the smgle mic r o s co p e , not only as it |
n r Ip hut becaufe, as we have already obferved,it was
the mo imp . ^ double or compound microinvented
and ufed long before ^ CQn..