NEWSLETTER OF THE OPTOMETRIC HISTORICAL SOCIETY Optometry L1brar Vertical FUe l (7000 Chippe~va Street, Saint Louis, Missouri, U. S. A~ 63119) Volume 2 April 1971 Number 2 'Tis good to be home: It is not easy to resume this editorial role in the recording of history when my locum tenens is an acknowledged, if not the, expert in historical matters related to optics, visual science, and optometry. On several occasions around th~s globe, even close to the antipode, I discovered the name of John Levene to be almost as fruniliar as many a household word, especially in science history circles. My feelings were a bit like those one might imagine a practitioner might have if his locum tenens were Dr. F. C. Danders. The three issues Dr. Levene edited during my absence contain a wealth of information which, under ordinary circumstances, is hard to get. I sometimes wonder if the reason that optometric history is so infrequently a part of optometric conversation, or a speech topic, is merely the fact that there has not been a convenient source of reliable and accurate information. Though I have been home only a few weeks, I discover that I have already had three occasions to get information from earlier issues o:( this NEWSLETTER. One was for a course lecture, one to answer an inquiry from a friend, and the third to refresh myself on a point that was discussed in a small social gathering. Someday, surely, the accumulated issues will be indexed for easier reference as a sort of primary resource or as a lead to more extensive sources. Your cooperation is necessary, of course. The Society exists to enable you to contribute, so please pass on your little, or big, gems of information or observations, or inquiry, for inclusio~ in the NEWSLETTER. Historical Impact: Historians must continuously weigh the significance of events to make their interpretations reliable and valid. An event that drastically influenced the direction of optometry was the now classic Markham v. Wood, Abrahams case which was tried before Mr. Justice Ridley and a special jury on October 24-26, 1910, in Manchester, England, and retried before the Lord Chief.Justice of England, with a special jury, on March 14-16, 1911. . This malpractice suit e.stablished the optometrist's responsibility to detect ocular pathology and to advise his patient accordingly. In the first trial the jury could not reach an agreement. In the second trial the jury decided in favor of the plaintiff (the patient). The details of the two trials, the extensive and confusing testimony, and editorial commentary are fascinatingly covered in three issues of The Optician and Photographic Trade Journal, as follows: -4- October 28, 1910, Vol. 40, No. 1022: "The Optician's Legal Standing," pp. 101-102 "Legal Position of Sight-Testing Opticians," pp. 103-118 March 17, 1911, Vol. 41, No. 1041: "The Legal Position of Optometrists," pp. 19-24 March 24, 1911, Vol. 41, No. 1042: "The Litigation and After," pp. 27-28 "Optical Rays and Opinions," pp. 28-29 "Voice of the Trade," p. 29 "The Legal Position of Optometrists," pp. 30-42 What was the impact? Simply that optometry acquired a professional responsibil;i.ty by losing its first malpractice case! Yes, the "sight­ testing opticians" of the day rallied in support of the firm of Messrs. Wood and Abrahams and the firm's guilty refracting optician, Mr. Thomas, but to no avail. Hiss Markham won. Thi.s crucial decision influenced the educational and professional patterns of optometry throughout the British Empire and other English­ speaking nations. An Optometric Reminisce-In? Like the appearance and disappearance of Kilroy, the hyphenated attachment of the preposition "in" to a verb, as in "teach-in," to represent a group discussion that is apparently inadequately connoted otherwise, may not stay with us long, and future people may wonder what it meant. But, punningly, it is indeed an "in" term at the moment. So, why not an optometric reminisce-in? This could be a gathering of optometric history buffs and critics, perhaps with a few stimulating refreshments at hand, where each participant would be prepared to contribute a gem of optometric history, an incident he remembers, a story he was told, an observation he made, or even an item of optometric folklore. This could follow the day's business and education of a convention or congress as a delightful evening's pastime, whether attended by only .a half dozen, or a hundred. In fact, the notion is so fascinating to me that· I may try to initiate sgmething like this at the time of the A.O.A. Congress in Houston next June. Let me know how this strikes you. Lomonossov and Optics: The Lomonossov State University in Moscow bears the name of a s'cientist who contributed significantly to . theory of light and color and to the building of optical instruments and the manufacture of .optical glass. -His name was Michail Wassiljewitsch Lomonossov (1711-1765). .A very inte:r:~cing review of his optical contributions, with seven illus­ trations and eight references, is made by Wilhelm Schlitz of Jena, East-Germany, in JENA REVIEW, Vol. 15, No. 6, 1970, pp. 315-320. -5- Old Settlers' Remedies: The September issue of the Canadian Journal of Optometry (Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 65-66) lists early remedies for 16 conditions related to the eyes and vision. Among these conditions are "Eyes Bleared," "Dull Sight" and "Clouds Flying Before the Eye." The list was abstracted by optometrist R. A. Rosere of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, from a compilation entitled "Old Settlers' Remedies" by Marion Robertson for the Cape Sable Historical Society, Barrington, Nova Scotia. The sources date back to the 16th century. "Living" History: Back in 1948 I published what I then thought was a note of historical interest because it referred to an event that occurred in 1931. It involved the court case of a South African optometrist named J. L. Saks, the decision of which continues to be a legal cornerstone for South African optometry. Today Optometrist Saks serves his colleagues ·in the vital, and vibrant, role of Editor of the South African Optometrist. Fondly known as "J. L." by his friends around the world, he keeps this journal competitive with.the best. Another Museum? A 300-year-old pair of tortoise rim spectacles made in China, a 150-year-old pair of multifocals, a 50-year-old battery-run ophthalmoscope, an 1866 ophthalmic chair, and a 100-pair frame collection donated by C. C. Tait, O.D., retired, are a .few of the items in the historical collection of the University of Waterloo School of Optometry. Dr. E. J. Fisher, Director, hopes that someday these will be exhibited in a new optometry building. In the meantime, every precaution is being taken to preserve and add to the collection. A detailed write-up appeared in the February, 1971, issue of AOA News. So Who Was Cho Tso? When I wrote my comments on the.history'of spectacles in my book OPTOMETRY (1948) I included the s.imple statement, "The old Chinese opticians attributed the invention of spectacles to Cho Tso." Now I have received a letter from Mr. T. C. Chang, a history buff employed at the Hong Kong Optical Co., Ltd., 57 Queen's Road, C., Hong Kong. Says Mr. _Chang, "Last year, I read some excerpts from Joseph Needham's Science and Civilization in China wherein Needham mentioned.Cho Tso too. I tried very hard to find out the o~iginal Chinese name of Cho Tso, but of no avail. I still do not know who this man is--known to foreign scholars as Cho Tso." -6- My source (or should I say, alibi?) was P~bert Barnett on pages 85 ~nd 87 of The 1943 Year Book of Optometry published by the New York State Optometric Association. From an acknowledgment at the close of Barnett's article I suspect he may have derived this from personal correspo11dence with Mr. 0. P. Rasmussen. I checked Needham's 1962 issue of SCIENCE AND CIVILIZATION IN CHINA, Vol. 4, Part 1, Cambridge, and found no reference to Cho Tso under "' "Eye-glasses and spectacles." However, he makes a number of references which have substantial phonetic similarity to "Cho Tso." "Milestones" or Stumbling Blocks? The abovementioned Mr. Chang also kindly put into writing; at my insistence, a couple of points that had amused. him in reading the familiar Bausch & Lomb book entitled "Milestones in Optic~l History," 1954. He says: "Page 6: The Picture. Showing two men writing with feathers, one with right hand, other with left hand. ·Firstly, the Chinese people never used feathers for writing purpose. Before the 'Brush' (Chinese pen) was invented by General Moon-Tien towards 220 B~ C., Chinese characters were carved on bamboo (to keep historical records) and on tortoise-shell and animal-bones (for use as oracles). Moon-Tien used deer-hair and wood-rod to make the first 'Brush' and since then, carving was replaced by writing. Secondly, the Chinese people never write with left hand. "Page 7: The Text. Spectacles in Ancient China. It is quite true that superstition and etiquette governed their use, and that glasses were worn to indicate position, possessions, professions, and intelligence, but not idiocy. As I told you, in old China, when a youngster paid a visit to an elder, he must remove his glasses, otherwise, it would mean disrespect; even insult. It is impossible that glasses were. in use during Confucius time. It seemed that glasses were not invented by the Chinese people, but were imported into China through .Central Asia, and became widely adopted-during the Ming Dynasty. That Confucius relieved the eyes of a cobbler with glasses is a ludicrous error. Confucius never wrote anything by hims·elf. His students took notes _of his . sayings, and compiled them into a book. As far as I . know, 'cobbler' was not mentioned in any Chinese classical books, nat to say Confucius book, for shoe-mending was considered a mean job, not worth mentioning in a respectable scholastic work. -7- Tortoise-shell frames are very expensive and easily broken. However, we here in Hongkong still sell a lot of them, for some of the older people do believe that tortoise-shell brings long life. Some people are wearing glasses at the advice of fortune-tellers, because glasses n