(243 North Volume 10 NEWSLETTER OF THE )fPTOMETRIC HISTORICAL SOCIETY Lindbergh Boulevard, Saint Louis, Missouri, October 1979 A decade of historical notes: NOV 2 91979 Number 4 This issue completes ten years of this newsletter, a total of 40 numbers. To give the full set an added value all 40 issues have been indexed together. The index is a supplement to this issue. History~ international: While new O.H.S. members are always very special to us, the two newest ones are especially special, from lands very far apart. One is the Israel Opticians and Optometrists Association, P.O.B. 2826, Tel Aviv, Israel, and the other is Roy Brown, O.D., President of the Canadian Association of Optometrists, P.O. Box 190, Virden, Manitoba ROM 2CO, Canada. Those fascinating irides: The iris is fascinating not only because its plural is irides (rhymes with eye-lid-ease) and because it derives from the Greek word meaning rain­ bow, but also because it functions in a manner that challenges physiologists, anatomists, photometrists, artists, and poets alike, to name a few. But more. Almost exactly a century ago, in 1880 or 1881, a Hungarian physician, Dr. Ignatz von Peczely, born either in 1822 or 1826, and died in 1911, pub­ lished what may have been his only book, an alleged method of diagnosis of bodily ills and defects by examination of the patient•s iris and comparison with a detailed chart of the iris. Each section of the iris was said to correlate with an organ, a component or region of the body, or a function. The methodology has been variously called 11 irisdiagnosis 11 , 11 iridiagnosis 11 , 11 iridodiagnosis 11 , 11 iridology 11 , and 11 diagnosis from the eye 11 by subsequent authors and practitioners of the cult, almost all of whom identify Dr. Peczely as the 11 discoverer 11 • The practice appears to have been introduced to the English speaking world by Henry Edward Lane in a book entitled 11 Diagnosis From the Eye 11 pub­ lished simultaneously in Chicago by Kosmos Publishing Co. and in London by L. N. Fowler & Co. in 1904. A subsequent author and long time proponent of the art, J. Haskel Kritzer, ~1.D., whose fifth edition of 11Text-book of Iridiagnosis 11 was published by the author in 1924 in Los Angeles, according to a sticker insert, but printed in Chicago and copyrighted in 1921, and whose seventh edition was published in Los Angeles in 1948 by the Kritzer Educational Foundation, credited the introduction of the system into the U.S. to Henry E. Lahn, M.D., whose book had the same title and date as that of Henry Edward Lane. Kritzer also states that l:lenry Lindlahr, M.D., Lahn's pupil, published the book 11 Iridiagnosis 11 in 1917. The sixth edition of Lindlahr's book was published by the Lindlahr Publishing Co, Chicago, in 1924. In 1916 a two volume bofrk by Nils liljequist, a homeopathic physician in Stockholm,entitled 11 The Diagnosis from the Eye 11 and translated by J. D. Larson, was published by the Iridology Publishing Company in Rockford, Illinois. The translator called Liljequist the 11 Discoverer of the Dia·g­ nosis from the Eye", but Liljequist himself, in words presumably translated by Larson, credited the discovery to Peczel.J:! In 1962 and in 1968 Theodore Kriege ptlblished the first and second editions, respectively, of his 11 Fundamental Basis of Irisdiagnosis 11 in German, the second edition of which was tr.anslated into Eng·l ish and pub­ lished in London by L. N. Fowler a-nd Co. in 1969, with a revised edition in 1975. Kriege's book lists 14 other authors of iridodiagnosis publications and a periodical Griskorrespondenz for the years 1931-37, all in German. Why do I bother to mention a11 of these details, the credibility of much of which I cannot vouch for even though I derived it from printed pages? I do so merely because it is ophthalmic history, apparently not in­ volving optometrists themselves but certainly brought to individual op­ tometrists' attention quite perennially. I recall somewhat excruciatingly having attended a dinner meeting in Los Angeles in about 1950 at which Dr. Kritzer spoke. Using Dr. Kritzer's colorful chart of the iris my dinner companion diagnosed me as having a defectiv:e organ which has yet to give me any trouble. I conclude that all of this may well ~ evidence for the mythical assertion that there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow .. A time for culture: ---- The reproduction at the right is from a report of the AOA (then the American Associ­ ation of Opticians) convention of 1908 in Philadelphia which appeared in the August 20 issue of The Optical Journal, Vol. 22, no. 8, p. 348. \VEDXESDAY, At:G. 12, 2.30 P. M. :;PF.CIAL PROGRAM, EGYPTIAN HALL, JOHN WAXA:I!.\KER'5.· :\Ir. \Villi am Bourke Sulli \:an, Basso­ cantante; lliss R!Jt:a Silberstein, ·Pian­ ist; Dr. ). Lewis Browne, Organist. I. Organ-Introduction to Act. III and Brid~tl Chorus ,;Lohcngrin," (\Vag­ ncr), Dr. Drowne. 2. Songs with Piano-( a) "Thy Beam­ i;lg- Eyes" (:\JacDo,,·ell), (b) '"Had a Ht,rsc" (Korba,·). :\!iss Silberstein. J. Cone.erto icr ·Piano in C minor, Op. 37 (lketho\·cn), "\ lkgro co•1 trio, :\[iss Silberstt•in: ~ nn:h,·st ra ,.core in rclluc-· tion for urgan). 4- .Soul!, with Piano-"'fhis Earth \\"ere Ht:t\'cn'' (Browne), new; tirst timr. 5- (a) · Ga,·ottc. irom ".:Mignon" ~ 1 homas) ; (b) I ntcrmezzo Geutile (.new), ( Browne), Dr. Brow.ne. 6. ~rttion Pictun~s--(a.) "Atlantic Voyage"; (b) ;.Paul RcYere." -59- Fundus photography history: Librarian R. Hurtes wrote the 22 page chapter entitled ''Evolution of Ophthalmic Photography" in the Summer 1976 issue of International Ophthal­ mology Clinics, Vol. 16, no. 2. This issue is entitled OPHTHALMIC PHOTO­ GRAPHY and is edited by Johnny Justice, Jr., as a hard cover book. The author describes early attempts to record fundus appearances by the artistic painting of ophthalmoscopic observations on canvas and identifies a 1907 publication by Dimmer as the first textbook of fundus photographs. The first human fundus photograph is said to have been made by Jackman and Webster in 1886. Fifty nine references are listed. The expansion of the art is clearly evidenced by the founding of the Ophthalmic Photographers' Society in 1969 with a current membership in excess of 250 members. A letter from Damien Smith: In the July 1979 (Vol. 10, No. 3) issue of the Newsletter of the Optometric Historical Societl, you referred {page 54) to a Layland articre-in the Australian Journa of Optometry which mentioned the AOA and the BMA. You asked the origin of the 11 B11 • BMA was, and still is, the British Medical Association. Around 1879, medical practitioners in the various States of Australia constituted themselves as Branches of the British Medical Association, coming together to form a Feder a 1 Counci 1 of the BMA in Australia. It was not until 1962 that an autonomous Australian Medical Association, with State Branches, was formed. Consequently, the body representing organised medicine in Australia, and with whom organised optometry (Australian Optometrical Association, established 1918) fought, was the British Medical Association. The formation of the BMA in Australia was from circumstances not different to those from which most professional associations have emerged. For instance, fn Victoria, a Port Phillip Medical Association was formed in 1846, to become the Victorian Medical Association in 1852 and the ~·1edical Society of Victoria in 1861. A statute to control medical practice was passed in 1856. In the early 1870's a handful of medical practitioners became disgruntled with the Medical Society of Victoria over such issues as - 11quackery" by medical practitioners licensed through a grandfather clause in the 1856 statute, advertising of miracle cures by prominent members of the Society and disputes over the editorship of a local medical journal. One of the dissidents travelled to London and returned with a written message from the President of BMA inviting the establishment of Australian Branches of BMA. This proved timely as there was a growing realisation of 'scientific medicine' and the need for international links. Thus, in 1879 the medical profession in the various States of Australia came together as branches of the BMA, and to remain so constituted for over 80 years. While this explanation may not excite you, it \'Jill prove that the newsletter not only reaches the antipodes, but is actually read. My congratulations on a fine newsletter. Damien P. Smith, Executive Director Australian Optometri~al Association Three 1867 advertisements: Mrs. Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, Of Brooklyn, after using the IVORY EYE-CUPS, orders a pair for the wife of Rev. Charles Beecher, of Georgetown, Mass. STEREOPTICONS AND MAGIC LANTERNS, With the latest improvements and best lenses, snit­ e.])le for Schools, Public Exhibitions, and Parlor En­ tertainments. Priced catalogue, with list of over 2000 artistically colored Photographic Views, sent Cree by Mall. T. H. :!IleAL LISTEn, Opttcian, 49 Nassau St., N.Y. RESTORE YOUR SIGHT ! SPECTACLES AND SURGICAL OPERATIONS RENDERED USELESII!t THE INESTIMABLE BLESSING OF SIGHT fs MADE PERPETUAL BY THE USE OF THE NEW PATENT Dl.- 1 PROVED IVORY EYE CUI'S. : Many of our most eminent Pkyflfeiam, OmdiBts, Stwl.entll, and Divines have had their Sight restored , and permanently cured of: '1 1. IMPAIRED VISION. 2. PRESBYOPIA; or, Far Sightedness. ' 3. ASTHENOPIA; or, Weak_Eyes. 4. EPIPHORA-~unning or Watery Eyes. I' 5. SORE EYES. G. WEAKNESSOFTHERETINA,orOJ>ticNcrve.; B. PHOTOPHOBIA; or, Intolerance of Light. ---------------::-:--::-:: 1. OPHTHALMIA; or, InJlammatlon ol' the Eye. 'I 9. PTOTIS; or, Falling of the Eyelids. 10. MYODESOPIA, moVing specks before the Eyes. OLD EYES MADE 11. AMAUROSIS; or, Obscunty of Vision. NEW eaBt1y and with-f.---~ 12. CATARACTS, and Worst Disorders. of the Eye. out doctor or medi-~~ '\ ANY ONE can use the IVORY EYE-CUPS without cines. Sent postpaid the aid of DOCTOR or MEDICINE so as to receive on receipt of-10 cents. ( AYIA'IIHITH SptCTACLES. immediate beneficial results, and never wear speCtacles; FOOTE or, if using now, to lay them aside /1ayor Cheatham had practiced optometry in Tomba 11 for 23 years. In 1973, he was honored by the Harris County Optometric Society as the Optometrist of the Decade. -65- Dr. Cheatham is considered to be a co-founder, with Dr. Bernard Mazow, of the University of Houston College of Optometry. Dr. Cheatham, a graduate of Southern College of Optometry, class of 1936, went into practice with his father on the eighth floor of the Shell Building on the corner of Fannin and Texas in downtown Houston in July, 1937. Dr. Cheatham•s delay in entering practice resulted from having failed his first attempt at the state board. He returned to Southern College of Optometry until the next board meeting. It is interesting to note that thirteen candidates took the state board when Dr. Cheatham made his first attempt. Taking the board were graduates from Columbia, Massa­ chusetts, Northern Illinois, Ohio State, and Southern College. According to Dr. Cheatham, 11 and that state board only one man passed. This man was not a graduate of an optometry college. He was taking the examination under what was then the apprentice rule, 11 where you could work in an optometrist•s office for two years and then take the board. 11 So all of the college men failed and the one apprentice passed. 11 * Practicing on the second floor of the Shell building was a Dr. Bernard r~azow, a graduate of Columbia University. It is intriguing to note that both Drs. Cheatham and Mazow succumbed to cancer. Both served as faculty during the early days of the University of Houston College of Optometry. Dr. Mazow was one of the outstanding contact lens practitioners in the world at that time. He contributed greatly to the contact lens program. During the latter part of the 1950 1s, Dr. Mazow let it be known that he intended to practice in the place where he intended to retire. He knew that he had leukemia, but kept the information from his family, which knew that he had leukemia, but kept the information from him. So, (ca. 1961) he moved his family to Coral Gables, Florida. As was to be expected. Drs. Cheatham and Mazow, being in the same building, were back and forth between each other•s offices frequently dis­ cussing cases and sharing ideas. Dr. ~1azow was quite interested in starting a college of optometry in this part of the country. Even though no one paid much attention to him, he continued to explore every angle he could. One day he ran into Dr. Cheatham•s office exclaiming that he had just made a good contact. He had a patient who was a mathematics professor at the University of Houston, a Professor Howard Daniels. Dr. Mazow apprised Dr. ·Daniels how good it would be if they could start a college of Optometry at the University of Houston, and Dr. Daniels agreed that it was a good idea and agreed to look into it from the University•s point of view and report back to Dr. Mazow. Approximately a week later, Dr. Mazow again ran into Dr. Cheatham•s office stating that he had met with Professor Daniels, who had talked with the President of the University, Dr. W.W. Kemmerer. Dr. Kemmerer had stated that he would be most happy to look into it, that the University of Houston was organized to help people and to broaden learning. And, if the College of Optometry would help enough students, they would be willing to look into it. Arrangements were then made for Drs. Mazow and Cheatham to have an interview with Dr. Kemmerer. They found Dr. Kemmerer to be most interested, ent~usistic and very cordial. He had an assistant who was primarily a money raiser who sat in on the meeting and who immediately began to see dollars that he could raise from optometrists and other inter­ ested people to help start the college. During the meeting, Kemmerer -66- proceeded to set forth a series of guidelines of things which Cheatham and Mazow would have to do and bring back to him before they could pro­ ceed any further. Their discussion apparently encompassed the various optometric organizations in that Kemmerer asked them to determine whether the Harris County Optometric Society was agreeable and was willing to lend all possible help. They were also to obtain the approval of the Texas Optometric Association. If both HCOS and TOA were interested, then the proper backing of the ADA was to be obtained. As president of the Harris County Society, Cheatham obtained its approval and pledge of support rather quickly. Being a second vice-president of the TOA, he called all of the board members prior to the next board meeting and was able to obtain quick approval at the meeting for the proposed college. They then reported back to Kemmerer. Kemmerer then arranged for a meeting with the deans and department chairpersons to determine whether there was any objection to the estab- 1 i shment of a co 11 ege of optometry or whether there was any interest. If there was interest, they were to determine which departments might supply teaching personnel for courses such as geometrical optics. Professor Daniels was very helpful to them in this meeting as he had been in previous meetings and would continue to be until the program was established. Professor Daniels was an outstanding individual and Texas optometry as well as the University of Houston were deeply grieved when he and his family were killed in an automobile accident between Houston and Dallas (ca. 1962). With Daniels·• help, Mazow and Cheatham came away from the meeting with the approval of the department heads. The issue of the new school was now ready for presentation to the Board of Regents. It v1as anticipated that there might be some difficulty obtaining approval by the Board of Regents in that there was an ophthalmologist on the Board. Dr. Cheatham commented on the problem as follows, 11 0ne of the Regents was an ophthalmologist that was probably one of the worst enemies that optometry ever had. She was the type that attended every Board of Regents meeting and voiced her opinion on all the subjects. We knew that this would be a hurdle. An interesting thing to me and to our group at the time was that even though there was practically no rapport between ophthalmologists and optometrists in Houston, on an organized basis, there were some personal friendships. My father had been a friend of a very well known and respected ophthalmologist, Dr. E. L. Gore. Dr. Gore was really the dean of the ophthalmologists in Houston, Texas and a good part of the United States for many years. I happened to run into Dr. Gore in a restaurant one noon and, after exchanging pleasantries, I broached him with our project, told him all about it, and asked if he would help us by interceding with Dr. Ray K. Dailey, who was the lady who would oppose us. Dr. Gore agreed that he would intercede, but not in an official capacity; that when he would see her in the hall, on the street, in the hospital, or the like, he would point out to her that it might be a good idea to approve the college. That he would not necessarily go out of his way to help us, but he certainly would not hurt us and would encourage us to go ahead. 11 * When the issue appeared before the Board of Regents, it was not opposed. -67- Now, our founders encountered a real problem, that of selling the school to the AOA. Dr. Cheatham tells it this way, 11 The1·e \vas d bi~J ~woblem in selling the AOA on this thing because, number one, the leaders of the AOA at that particular time were not sure that they wanted another college of optometry. They were not sure that we had enough qualified teaching per­ sonnel. They were not sure that way down in Texas, where the Indians still roamed, and some of those people still believe that, they had never heard of the University of Houston, and just did not want to be a part of starting any kind of an optometry college in a second rate little school or teachers college or whatever it might be. So they gave us a little static and it was necessary to make trips to various conventions and meetings and conferences to really sell these guys. We took pictures and Dr. Kemmerer even went with us on several occasions to present our case. Eventually we were able to get them to send Dr. H. Ward Ewalt, who is still active in optometric educa­ tional circles, down here to view the facilities of the University and to check it out so to speak. And I assure you that he went away impressed. He received the royal treatment and he went back and told the people from AOA that we had a going jessie** here, an established university, at that time well financed, and that it would certainly be a credit to optometry to have a college here. Following approval by the Board of Regents and the obtaining of ap~ proval by the AOA, the University let it be known in a very firm way that it would take considerable money to start the college and it was up to the profession to raise enough money to make the project worthwhile. In response, the optometrists of Texas pledged $20,000.000 for each of the first six years of the program, or $120,000.00 total. The tremendous work of men like Dr. Ira Woods and Dr. Nelson Greeman, Sr. in raising this money is a well known story in the state of Texas. Dr. Nelson Greeman, Sr., during certain lean years, borrowed the money in his own name when collections were short. There was great dedication to the college by both the structural and functional oriented optometrists. The college responded by establishing the philosophy of teaching ~'the all 11 of optometry. This philosophy has endured and demon­ strably produced outstanding Doctors of Optometry. As Reverend Frank Boutwell said during the final services, Dr. Cheatham was an unassuming man who made things happen. He was a facilitator who responded to the needs of people and of his community. *From Oral History Collection, University of Houston College of Optometry Library. **Apparently 11 a going jessie 11 is a colloquialism meaning 11 a successfully functioning program, .. comparable to 11 a rising star 11 or 11 a winner 11 • - H.W.H. -68- Op-to~meet•-rist and 1842 asthenopia: Richard M. Hall, O.D. formerly of Cleveland, now retired and presently living in Orlando, Florida, sent me two old tear-sheets which say something about our optometric heritage. The first is a page 22, the VIRGINIA SECTION, of what may be deduced to be the August 1940 issue of the Associated Journal of Optometry. The date deduction is based on a same page reference to a July 23rd, 1940, incident and an alert to a September 1, 1940 deadline. Here is the paragraph captioned 11 ~1ore About the His tory of Optometry .. : Dr. John Buchanan tells the editor that he attended a meeting of the American Optical Association in either 1901 or 1902 at which time there were two divisions of it, the Physiological Section and the Dispensing Section. At this meeting it was moved that the members start calling themselves Optometrists; pronounced op-to-meet-rists, accent on the meet. This had to lay over for one year. Dr. Buchanan says that upon his return to his office in Virginia he had the word Optometrist put on his door and he believes he is the first one in the country to do so. He is certain that he is the first in Virginia. The other tear-sheet is page 38 of the November 15, 1944, issue of the Optical Journal and Review of Optometry on which were reprinted several paragraphs from an article 11 The Story of Asthenopia: Important Part Played by Philadelphia - What of the Present and the Future?11 by Walter B. Lancaster, M.D., in the August 1943 issue of Archives of Oph­ thalmology. The reprinted paragraphs were captioned, 11 How Great­ Grandfather came to America, 11 as follows: In 1842, if one•s great-grandfather, then living in England, had suffered from asthenopia, what would have been his fate? He would have consulted one of the leading ophthalmic surgeons, perhaps MacKenzie of Lawrence or Adams. The physician, after examining and questioning the patient, would have noted certain facts which he regarded as impor~ tant. The patient was, say 18 years old and a student at Oxford; with good general health and a good family history. The eyes showed no signs of inflammation, present or past, and slight photophobia. There was a tendency to frown. Vision was very good for distant objects and was good for near for a short period. In reading, the print soon be- came blurred. A few months before, shortly after under­ taking some special work involving study of old manuscripts, much of the time by candlelight, the patient noticed the blurring of vision. At first it appeared toward the end of the week after several days of steady use of the eyes. Resting the eyes over the week-end restored the sight. By degrees the blurring came on earlier in the week. A few weeks before, the patient could read for over an hour, but lately the sight failed in a few minutes, so that he found it impossible to study. -69- Probably no record would be made of ocular discomfort, headache or other symptoms, local or general, except loss of sight, because at that time such symptoms were not regarded as a part of the picture of asthenopia. The important questions which the physician tried to answer were, What brought on this serious condition, and what should be done about it? He found that the occur>ation, study of old manuscripts, was the immediate cause. But many stu­ dents were able to do this work; there must be some under­ lying cause and some contributing factors. There had been no acute illness to cause debility; no previous attacks of ophthalmia, especially no scrofulous inflammations of the eyes, and no cerebral symptoms (convulsions). The physician therefore fell back on the explanation commonly given in such cases, that the debility behind the ocular weakness was due to masturbation and spermatorrhea. The prognosis given was the probable development of am­ blyopia and even amaurosis. The treatment advised was 1) cauterization of the urethra (to which MacKenzie devoteq considerable space in his textbook, 2) giving up of all use of the eyes for near work and 3) opera­ tion, which was mentioned as advocated by some surgeons but was not urged. Spectacles were not advised. Some days later, while the patient was te 11 i ng a friend about his sad affliction, his friend interrupted him: I know just such a case. A young woman, a seamstress who worked for my aunt, Lady T., became so blind that she could not see to thread her needle or do her sewing. She went to Lenz, the optician, who sold her some glasses, and now she is working as well as ever. You must see the optician at once. I have no doubt he can cure you. So the patient went to the optician and was sold a pair of convex lenses, with which he found to his amazement that he could read all he wanted without the horrible blurring coming on. He resumed his work at the university with a pro­ found feeling of relief. A few months later, not having his glasses with him, he started to do some reading and found that he could not see a word! In a panic he went at once to the physician. The lat­ ter told him that what had happened was just what was to be expected. Wearing convex lenses inevitably led to just that loss of sight which he had suffered. It was a sure road to amblyopia. He should give up the glasses and take a prolonged rest in the country or, better still, emigrate to Australia or Canada and take up sheep raising or lumbering. His sight might then be restored. And so it was that one•s great­ grandfather came to America • -70- T.ribute to Ernst Engelking (1886- ): 11 Die Bedeutung von Ernst Engelking fur die sinnes-physiologisch - ophthalmologisch Forschung 11 (Ernst Engelking's contributions to sensory physiological ophthalmological research), is the title of an article by ophthalmologist W. Jaeger of the University of Heidelberg in the Ncvember 1975 issue of Klinische Monatsbl§tter fUr Augenheilkunde und Augen~rzt­ liche Fortbildung, Vol. 167, no. 5, pages 745-752. Engelking is said to have contributed to a better appreciation of the nature of color vision during the decades when the Helmholtz-Hering color theory controversy raged hottest. Thirty-three of his publications are listed. I presume that Dr. Engelking is still living. Brief histories of intraocular lenses: Three talks about lens implants together give a somewhat better than cursory history of this rather recent development in ophthalmology and op­ tics. They all appear as parts of a symposium in the January/February 1976 issue of the Transactions of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Oto­ laryngology, Vol. 81, No. 1 The first is an invited paper entitled 11 The origin and objectives of intraocular lenticular implants 11 by Harold Ridley, the originator of this ophthalmological development, on pages OP65-0P77, in which he credits his undertaking as a response to a student's question in 1948. The second is entitled 11 The history of intraocular lenses 11 by M. J. Roper-Hall on pages OP67-0P69, in which it is pointed out that the idea itself dates back to the time of the first intracapsular extractions, and that unsuccessful attempts were made some 200 years ago. The author traces the problems and successes of several types of implants and includes a diagrammatic chart showing the evolution of the posterior chamber, angle supported, and iris supported types. The third, entitled 11 Advantages and disadvantages of the types of intraocular lens available, 11 is by Henry Hirschman on pages OP89- 0P92. In spite of the title, the article is in effect a brief history simply because the recency of implants makes any accounting of their current development a recitation of history. Lotze's theory of spatial perception: Though a professor of philosophy at Gottinger University for 35 y.ears, Rudolph Hermann Lotze, (1817-1881) is best known to us for his theory of spatial perception, usually called local sign theory. The theory itself is quite simple to grasp or describe, but what is more profound is the role this one fertile idea served in the development of broader concepts. It had its impact on both empiricists and nativists. Wi 11 i am R. WoodHard describes Lotze's theory, its origins, and its transformation at the hands of psychologists of various theoretical per­ suasions in an article entitled, 11 From Association to Gestalt: The Fate of Hermann Lotze's Theory of Spatial Perception, 1846-1920 11 appearing in the December 1978 issue of Isis, Vol. 69, no. 249, pp. 572-582. t -71- I ; Honorary shelf space: In many an organization certain members lend themselves generously to elective offices and serve their fellow members at great length without pay and of course with ever-present criticism as well as perfunctory applause. Following completion of the process of 11 going through the chairs 11 or otherwise terminating a long period of service and ceremoniously re­ ceiving a billfold, lapel pin, cuff-links, or other memento of appreciation, a feeling of abandonment often sets in. This feeling may be labeled jokingly as a 11Withdrawal symptom 11 , a need for commiseration with a fellow victim. To fill this need a number of slightly unreal fraternities have come and gone, with humorous rituals, sham ceremonies, 11 secret11 pledges, absurd codes of conduct, ridiculous penalties, and even membership privi­ lege cards. Optometry has of course had its share. Recently, Dan Hummel sent me a copy of a 11membership 11 card received in 1950 from the late H. E. Pine, O.D., which reads as follows: Royal Order of GQL\TS LIFE MEMBER V!t. V. G. Hummel. Having served his sentence as an ordinary GOAT in his optometric association.is hereby granted the privileges of a member in the Royal Order and may now enjoy the fellowship of his brothers who served with little thanks and no pay. Vee. 18th- 1950 H. E. P.in.e CHIEF GOAT HERDER About 1'4r. Touhy O.H.S. President Henry Knoll published a brief rem1n1scing account of the late Kevin Touhy's involvement with contact lenses and his 1946 invention of the corneal lens in the November 1976 issue of Contact Lens Forum, Vol. 1, No. 7, pages 11-13. Dr. Knoll conferred with three other contemporaries to supplement his own memory. A 1930 manual for board members: A book which I do not recall ever having seen before came to my attention a few weeks ago. It is a very dignified-appearing, brown, soft-paper bound, 22 x 15 x 1 em volume entitled 11 A Manual of OPTOMETRIC JURISPRUDENCE and sug­ gested uniform standards .. , First Edition, 1930, published by the International -72- Association of Boards of Examiners in Optometry and edited by Dr. Laurence P. Folsom of South Royalton, Vermont, in which state the book was printed. Included is a photographically excellent group picture of 22 identified optometrists and a reporter attending the 1927 meeting of the International Association of Boards of Examiners in Optometry, them abbreviated 11 I.B.B. 11 (for 11 International Board of Boards 11 ), at Hotel Willard in Washington, D.C. The publication, originally distributed to every state optometry board member, state Governor, and state Attorney General in the u.s., and sold at one dollar each to anyone who wanted it, has 15 very well edited chap­ ters virtually free of split infinitives, dangling participles, and other inelegant grammatical errors. Included among the topics are such matters as visual standards in aviation, optometry curricula, optometry laws in Canada, a model optometry law, an exemplary set of examination questions, advice to state board secretaries and to newly appointed members, reci­ procity, 11 gl a zed goods 11, and enforcement procedures. An interesting statistic was a quotation from page 116 of the 25th annual report of the 11 University of State of New York, .. (State Dept. of Education), as follows: 110ut of 100 complaints made to me as Optometry Inspector, fifty were on improper advertising. Although 90% of these were settled without Court action, it was deemed necessary by the Attorney General to bring before the Board all future complaints on illegal advertising ••• ~~ Most perspicacious of all was Editor Folsom's opening sentence in the Introduction: 11 To. ALL who have tried in divers ways to hinder and prevent the progress of Optometry we owe much... · Three old manuscripts offered: (The following is a letter received by James P. Leeds, O.D., in July. Dr. Leeds does not collect this type of item.) I have noticed with interest your advertisement in the Book-Mart for things dealing with the eye and optics. I have three items that might be of interest to you. They are as follows. Three original, unpublished handwritten essays, done in the 1850's by medical doctors, on the subject of 11 0phthalmia. 11 These manuscripts are quite readable, written in ink on legal size paper. The three essays bear evidence of disbinding on the left-hand margin and are separate from each other. They are: 1) thesis of Assistant Surgeon Dr. William G. Hay, 11 pages on blue paper. Written in 1858. 2) thesis of Dr. D. Bloodgood, written at 11 the Naval Asylum, Philadelphia, March 19, 1856. 11 3 pages on white paper. 3) thesis of Dr. Stewart Kennedy and 11Submitted to the Medical Examining Board of the u.s. Navy ... 2 pages on gray paper. 1858. -73- In each essay the doctors define the disease, g1v1ng its characteristics, status, and treatments. The essays are quite interesting and, I have no doubt, to an optometrist like your­ self, would prove fascinating reading. They are excellent rep­ resentatives of the state of medical knowledge in this field on the eve of the American Civil War. The three are priced at $25.00 postpaid ••• that is, $25 for· the three together. Check with your order please, and the items returnable within three days of receipt for any reason if unsat­ isfactory. I think you would like these items. We have never offered them for sale before and got them out thinking about listing them in our fall catalog, but on seeing your ad today, I thought I would drop you a line and see if you wished to have them. I believe you would be pleased with them. Slit-lamp microscopy history: Terry Alford P .0. Box 1151 Springfield, VA 22151 11 0n slit-lamp microscopy, a history of the development of the slit-lamp microscope 11 by TheodorA. F. Schmidt appears in the November 21, 1975, issue of Documenta Ophthalmologica, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 117-153. The article, with 23 illustrations, is based primarily on the more detailed chapter on focal illumination (Fokale Beleuchtung) by H. Goldmann in a book by Wolfgang Straub entitled 11 Die Ophthalmologischen Untersuchungsmethoden, 11 Enge, Stuttgart, 1970. Seven centuries of spectacle making: This is my free translation of L'occhiole si diffonde dal '700' 11 , an anonymously written article in the November 1978 issue of Ottica ltaliana, Vol. 20, No. 11, pages 78-79, 81, 84-86, and 88-90, with 19 illustrations, all but two of artists' period paintings showing subjects with spectacles. The other two are schematic representations of spectacle design evolution since their invention. Concerning color theory: A few historical comments on color theory from Newton to the present are presented all too briefly in a report entitled 11 Some demonstrations on colour 11 by Hood, C., and W. A. H. Rushton in the Proceedings of the Physio­ logical Society section of the December 1976 issue of the Journal of Physi­ ology, Vol. 263, No. 1, pages 58P- 59P. -74- Collyria history: A pharmaco-historical study of collyria and their components during Roman antiquity consists of well over a hundred pages of highly detailed information under the title "Ancient Ophthalmological Agents" by Harald Nielsen, translated from the Danish by Lars Mc.Bride and published by Odense University Press, Denmark, in 1974 as Vol. 31 of ACTA HISTORICA SCIENTIARUM NATURALIUM ET MEDICINALIUM Edidit Bibliotheca Universitatis Hauni ens is. The author concludes, among other things, "that eye diseases must have been very widespread in Roman times." John~· Bausch (1830-1926): A handsome 28 page pamphlet entitled "J. J. Bausch (1830-1926) American Pioneer" by M. Herbert Eisenhart was published in New York in 1948 by the American Branch of the Newcomen Society of England. One copy was hardboard bound, catalogued, and shelved in the Indiana University Library. It consists of the Newcomen Address given by Mr. Eisenhart at the April 15 "1948 Rochester Dinner" of the Society in Rochester, New York, at which Mr. Eisenhart, then President of Bausch & Lomb Optical Company, was guest of honor. The address includes many details of the early development of Bausch & Lomb, Inc. Reciprocal innervation not new: Kenneth J. Ciuffreda and Lawrence Stark give a thorough and well documented review of Descartes' concept of reciprocal innervation of the extraocular muscles in the October 1975 issue of the American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics, Vol. 52, No. 10, pp. 663-673. Although a bit erroneously based on hydraulic theory, his theoretical analysis is found to be in agreement with current observations and experiments. The authors entitled their article "Descartes 1 law of reciprocal innervation." They included numerous drawings and 23 references. H. W Hofstetter, Editor Postscript: If you attend the meetings of the American Academy of Optometry in Anaheim in December, or live or otherwise happen to be in the Fullerton, California, area on December 8, be ~ure to come to the Southern California College of Optometry from 3:30 to 5:30p.m. The date is on a Saturday, and all traffic on the lovely campus at those hours will be headed toward the annual reminisce-in of the Optometric Historical Society. Everything at the reminisce-in is special, unpredictable, fascinating, and cultural. If you have the courage to divulge a bit of optometric history yourself, something you remember, or discovered, or learned from a reliable source, you will have the opportunity there to share it with other history buffs. 1979-10-04-001 1979-10-04-002 1979-10-04-003 1979-10-04-004 1979-10-04-005 1979-10-04-006 1979-10-04-007 1979-10-04-008 1979-10-04-009 1979-10-04-010 1979-10-04-011 1979-10-04-012 1979-10-04-013 1979-10-04-014 1979-10-04-015 1979-10-04-016 1979-10-04-017 1979-10-04-018