•****'***'**•************••••····· ..... . . 
! Indiana University : • • .. ~ • • 

~ OEC l 6 :jc.,_; ~ NEWSLETTER . ~ 

: Library ; OF THE 
~ **************"'n ........ *******:J?PTOMETRIC HISTORICAL SOCIETY 

/:7<243 North Lindbergh Boulevard 
StLouis, Missouri 63141, USA> 

Vol.l7 October 1986 Number 4 
OPTOMETRY LIBRARY 

DEC 18 1966 

0/1 

The Optometric Historical Society regularly holds 
its annual meeting in conjunction with the annual meeting 
of the American Academy of Optometry which this year is to 
be in Toronto, Canada. The 1986 OHS annual meeting will 
begin at 6:15p.m. on Saturday December 13 in the Yonge 
Room of the Toronto Hilton Harbour Castle Hotel. OHS 
President Jerry Abrams will preside and guest speaker Dr. 
E.J. Fisher, Curator of the Museum of Visual Scie~ce and 
Optometry, School of Optometry, Univeristy of Waterloo, 
will present, "Canada is Optometrical History." 

Even without making a statistical study of the 
optometric serial publications of various countries one 
need only scan the literature briefly to become firmly 
aware of the much greater interest in ophthalmic history 
in certain countries. A single just received magazine 
from East Germany prompted this reminder. The May/June 
1986 issue of eyggngettk, Vol. 103, no. 3, received by 
surface mail in August, has an attractive front cover 
showing most of a page of an incunabulum with part of it 
magnified by an early "Lesestein'' <literally: reading 
rock>. In the text of the same journal itself are three 
articles of historical interest. 

The first is "Die Entwicklung der Nahsehhilfe" <the 
development of specatcles for near> by G. Ueberschaar, 
pages 66-71. With technological sophistication Dr. 
Ueberschaar traces the near vision aids from adaptations 
of burning lenses and Ptolemy's water-filled glass spheres 
through the evidences in fourteenth century portraits, the 
inventions of multifocals, flexifocal designs, Fresnel 
zone plates, Alvarez principle, and the varifocals. 
Documentation includes 17 illustrations, mostly 
diagrammatic and numerous mathematical analyses. 

The second article is a historical column by C. 
Kuhn, pages 81-83, with commentary on tha categorical 
distinctions to be made in the use of the overlapping 
terms "spectacles" and "visual aids". Also included are 



-50-

several photographic illustrations from the author's own 
collection of antiques. Further, he comments on the 
contributions of Christian Scheiner, Daca de Valdes, Pistor, von 
Rohr, Johann Duncker, King Friedrich Wilhelm III, Gullstrand, 
Benjamin Franklin, George Adams, and numerous others. 

The third ~rt't~lr~·,:"6n:,.;page 83, is a reprint of an article 
by H. Ketteniss in. ~g~g~_Qe~ikgcjQ~[nsl_ <Pforzheim, West 
Germany> 3/1986, p;. 14~ 'entitled "Alteste Nietbrille in Freiburg 
gefunden'' <The ol~~$~.r~v~~'~ spectacles discovered in· 
Freiburg>. It report.!. ·ehe f'inding of spectacle fragments during 
excavation for an underground garage in 1982 in Freiburg in West 
Germany. 

For a long time the riveted spectacles were known only 
from artists' illustrations of the early 14th centruy. From the 
other objects in the immediate surround it appears that the 
Freiburg spectacles may date back to almost 1278. The fragments 
are on display in the Freiburg Museum of Prehistoric and 
Ancient History. 

One may well ask whether the awareness of such historical 
details has a value to the profession and the individual 
optometrist. The cultural value can hardly be denied even by 
the least sophisticated among us, but is there a tangible, 
practical, merit as well? 

Surely in a profession that leans so heavily on the 
efficacy of a wide variety of visual aids and an understanding 
of their functional limitations and clinical effects there must 
be an advantage to the individual optometrist who appreciates 
the related efforts, theories, experiments, discoveries, and 
inventions of some of the most brilliant minds in the history of 
civilization. The ordinary half diopter lens of today is no 
lucky accident. The history of its development could fill a book 
with fascinating chapters. It is not irrelevant to this point 
that the most prestigious ophthalmic periodical on the European 
continent in its monthly issues of the past couple years 
published all of the chapters ~f a new geometric optics textbook 
in serial form. This was surely not merely for cultural 
edification. 

Indeed it would be hard to identify another single branch 
of knowledge that might have greater practical value than 
intelligent history. Besides, it is so interesting. 



-51-

~~~tng_nt§iQ~~-nQ~~-

qC~ OHS president Jerome J. Abrams, 0.0., and our 
OHS imm~diate past president James P. Leeds, 0.0. are both 
in leadership roles in the current drive to raise two 
million dollars to support the establishment of a School 
of Optometry at Tel Aviv University in Israel. According 
to a news release received in August from the American 
Friends of Tel Aviv University, Inc., the school, 
scheduled to be opened in 1987, will be the first of its 
kind in Israel and in the Middle East. 

A half page of the Forty-fifth Annu~l Report of the 
Victorian College of Optometry, Australia, is devoted to 
"The Archives" and the fact that two "honorary 
archivists", Michael Aitken and Brian Flynn, have for many 
years collected, catalogued, and preserved documents~ 
books, spectacle frames, and ophthalmic equipment. Each 
year they put part of the collection on display in the 
conference room of the college. For the 50th anniversary 
of registration of optometrists in Victoria they displayed 
letters, documents, photographs, and records of 
examination results relating to the original registration 
in 1935. 

In the June-August 1986 issue of Ib.~_§QYitL8f~i.£!Hl 
QQ~Qm~~~t~i, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 69-71, editor David 
Reynolds reprinted the following two-page article for a 
1929 Johannesburg weekly paper called Ib~_§j~ffiQQ~· A 
sjambok, incidentally, is a whip of dried hide for 
flogging. The significance of the article is considerably 
enhanced by the realization that in 1929 optometrists were 
not registered in South Africa and were then known as 
opticians or ophthalmic opticians. 

Dr. Reynolds explained merely that the "fascinating 
publication turned up on my desk the other day." 



-52-

Editorial and IJusiii"'IS i)ffiC'rs: 'Phonr Central 2r107. 
23, SaDftnon'a Bldta.. Pnsldut Street, Jobannesbarg. 

SaiiMI'Ipllon Ralel, ISs. Post Free. Ovetwas, S7L ld. 

All Sulou.riJ!Ii<•nr. """.''''' '"' •••nt t" C.li:.A. dil:ftt. 

ft>r .. !'f!-''":~i""~'~"' lloll..,., nol;l~. RtOAin""" t.!'!'.!'!F.."!: 

A Weeklr Critical Paper lor Ute Spreadlag of Ute 'lnatb.. 

J~LY 26th, 1929 

The Great Londo11 Eye Specialist 

AMUSING SCENE AT HATFIELD HOUSE 

Eye- Wash for the Hawk-Eyed 

Despite the fact that the reputable 
of this town has ceased to ac­
advertieements for the South· 

'-"'·•ru:an Eye and Ear Institute, the 
London optometrists," Mr. 

Gainsborough ud Mr. Arthur 
continue to operate gaily in 
shabby consulting rooms at 

IHlitfieJd House, and we have no 
but to revert to tM sllbject of 

se!!-Jauded operations, in th"!! 
of persuading them to abandoJ. 
attempts at. Eye Wasbintr Johan-

1 nesbll~rg. Their impudence . truly JS 

Arthur Gainsborough, " the 
Loadon specialist." was work­
an optician'a (or oculists's) as­

in this very town under his 
lril~t1'ul name of Abraham Ginsberg, 

months before he ftooded 
with bout1ul publicity. He 

to bave praetiaed as a chemist 
while iD Dtu·bu; but his eon­
for the intelliaenee of a city 

oDCe claimed to posse "mos!. 
te the equare yard," can o>nly 

as amazing and iDsultin¥. 
Arthur Lewis, on the other 

in bot water o'\lerseaa only 
further back, for on January 

BuD" ·devoted over half a 
to him under these headings:-

SUNLIGHT CLINICS: GRAVE 
. WARNING. 

Quacks Under. the Ray. 

At the top left-band corner of th~ 
expose, \\'OS the accompanying pic-

.UU.u Lewis, a Mladoa .. lick, wbo 

........ - ......... ,.. cllaJc Ia a......,. 
ture. exactly as now reproduced by 
us, caption and aiL · 

Some of the statements made by 
"John Bull" \\'ere withheld from last 
week's article pending further 
investigations. 

But now we discover that a certain 
similarity exists between the methods 
of the "Sun-Ray" Clinic and the 
South African Eye and Ear lnstitute. 

John Bull said:-
" The value of efficient sun-ray 

treatment is not. be disputed, but, as 

we have hnd cause to remark on 
many occasions, it is essential that 
be carried out under· the most de 
pendable medical supervision. 

"In spite of the New· Era :suJ~·ltaYI 
Clinic's contention that it 
'perfected treatment.' we 
there are grave grounds 'for doubt in 
mauer. .. 
. ··one gentleman. ~ho called .for a 
sultation, was received 1101 by a 
man, as might be expected, 6ut by a 
Goldman. 

"When he expressed surprise 
a reluctance to proceed 
qualified doctor, Mr. Goldman 
plained G"lat while be himself 
amined patients and pJ"'!!ICribecc 
course of treatment, everythillg 
subsequenUy carried out under 
medical man's SllperviaioD.~ 

Ambitious Object. 

.. As the enquirer was not 
amOured of this top8J'-tUI'W&' .,..,,...n ... -.J 

ment of the unqualified man 
precedence over the qualfiied 
tioner he did not pJIOCeell 
treatment. 

"We think be was wise, for 
quiries that we have mue i'el~llin:gf 
the New Era Sun-Ray Clinic do 
inspire confidence. 

"In the first place it. was 
·lisbed only as recenUy as NO'wl!lll1ber 



-53-

THE SJAMBOK 

Jut. aDd. in spite of its claim that its premises at 
1 .... ,..,,...0£" have been equipped without regard to coat, we 

that only .£2 of its authorised £600 capital has l;eP.n 
up! 

.. Even with the full £600 behind it, it could not hove 
to get vuy far, for its objects are 'to carry on the! b.usiJlC!SF 
of IIUl-ray aDd ultra-violet ray clinics, or institutions, anr. 

buy, sell, hire or manufacture apparatus nnd instrl:-
used in connection with such business." 

But that is not all. In February of this year au a:i­
vertisement appeared in a Glasgow paper calling nttention 
to "III&J"\·ellou.s cures" efl'ecled by the "Glasacow Sun-11.3:. 
Centre." 

[And then followed the statements publishe:l by us last 
week.] 

Now to get at the truth we asked a lady to accompany 
our artist last Friday to the South African Eye and En•· 
Institute. for the purpose of finding out if .Mr. Abraham 
GillaberJr and Mr. Arthur Lewis did themselves exnmine the 
patienta and otherwi11e operate. Before going there, the 
"patients," Who have perfect sight, were shown the "John 
Bull" portrait of Mr. 
Arthur Lewis. Our 
artiat, after leaving, 
sketched one of the 
" optometrists " who 
ran the business and 
who declared they 
were . "the bosses." 
Here is the drawing. 

No doubt whatever, 
is there! The Mr. 
Arthur ~ exposed 
as a quack in " Jotu. 
Bull," ia the Mr. 
ArthW' Lewis whoa:: 
na1ne bad DOt trans­
pired in COMection 
with the South Afri· 
can Eye and Ear ln­
&ti!.ute • • • until The: 
~:Jambok published it :-...-...;.;..._.;.;...~--.~;.....----: 
iut·weelt. 

Now to the " Opto- Mr. Anllar IAwb, u .Utclaed •r ea.r 
metrics" that 10 O!l artist. 
at Hatfield House. 

.Let the lady henelf describe what took place. 

, A Nice Little C..eocly-Farce. 
"We decided JWO tem to be·hushend and wife, and 

had a preliminary rehearsal ••. The worst of rehearsals 
ia that the absent people of the play don't say the 
things they should say ••• ! However, we reached 
the Eye and Ear ln11titute. There •·as a girl -ted 
at the de~k. 

I want to 11ee the bus," my newly-acquired husband 
:· .;,;,!d her, in hi!\ nr.wl_v.a''lluired Boer accent. 

A niiUI appeared from the inner room. "I am the 
Mr. Gainsborough.'' 

" Because I want my wife to see the best man." 
"Yea, yes, don't worry.'' 
He took ua into a darkened room. I was seateocl at a 

table and looked into the honest hom-rimmed spectacle~ 
of Mr. Gainsborough. 

TOgether we told him a ssd tale of connubial bliss 
ma'Ted by my headaches. The last three months I hat! 
been troubled with shooting pains and !lubes of liJ!'ht in my 
'!yea, things blurred before me . . . Then we had seen an 
advertisrnent ia the Sunday Times. Something must be 
wroDI' with DIJ' eyes! I sewed a great deal ... The glare OJ'I. 
the diamond diggings .•• our words trailed away. 

"Ye.c;. ye~, I quite follow. 1 am Mr. Gainabo•-lth.' 
Xow Mrs. Van der llerwe look at this pencil." 
•lrodsced it betwee!n his nose and mine. "Ah ••• Yea. 
~··'' see it '.louble." I hadn"t time to see an)·tlling. 
{. minute he had diAgnosed asti~ of the lett e)' 
,, .. •I hnvP I" wear glaiiSeS r• he said decidedly. 

•• Cut I "ant my wife to be teste.!, like you write 
~.h .. r.apo·r:;.:· 

Thl' '"::J"C!:!t optometrillt" jumped. 
liP i~ t"t'ally not a ve1-y good showftUln and had 

h·u :lllllbuul hi:< im1>ressive mnchine. HoweVC!r, he 
1;1' hi>< l."n'Or. "'Of cou111e, 1 shaD apply Ute test." He 
a)!,tin ini.(• my eyl'S. And then horror! ..• 

"l"OU /lAVE .4 SQUINT." 
0. :Otr. Gainsborough! You did for you1'Self with 

It·•·: thou:htiC!ICS words. In )·our next establishment 
t•.:ll women they squint. lt"s tactless.. EspeciaDy_ .... .,~_. ... ~ 
tion"L I don't. Not any more than I suft"er 
aochcs or shooting pains or from making my A-.-~ .... ,.h.-
1 nevC!r touch n needle exe!ept to take out a •v•uno~e&, 
han• bet•n to the di:~nond diggings, nor am 

llursting with inward laughter I u.t at the Ketralton~~etu .J 
When I had sat we discussed the gla.sses. A 11eJ71 
kind would cost .£3 3s.; but it would be mrceh better 
lO hn\"C! the real Ct"OOke's vat·iC!ty! These consisted of a 
derful tint<.>d gia.'IS to absorb the rays of. the .sun. 
would cost but a paltry guinea more! · 

I demurred, but my husband, with true Bo-er lteDeraait~hl 
insisted on nothing but the best. l:le was \"el'7 
get his two sketches! So when I was undergoing 
t:ltll.lllination in another room where I read letters 
Loard, the areat Mr. Arthur Lewis, whoee c:laaaie fa~tuJresl 
v.·e had seen hitherto only in the columns of .. 

·was produced in ot-der to calm the eood Dutchma.n'•l 
suspicions. 

I don't quite know what the test was about, but I 
covered that of the two eyes, my right was the 

The truth is-may I whisper-there is aothinc 
with my eyes at all. I don't squint, and I haven't an 
tigma. yet I have 110111ething (it isn't p-een) that any 
doctor worth, his salt CO!Jid Bel\ for it is Jnc,..rebJ,el 
Sceptidsm.·... . · 

~ But now the seance was OVC!r ••• at least tt_,..,.. I 
forgettinc the eurt.'lin. Mr. Arthur Gainsborouah, 
Abraham Ginsberg, came forward. "A depoait is the 
thine.'' he murmunld •.• on the blind aide of me. But 
husband" and I had the intelligent foresight to leave 
money at home. 

We ftecL 

Dr. Art.llar CalDabohagla, llae 1ru1 IA••- Specie :!st. 
a•za acna llae Jl[ual-eler ... 



-54-

Our recent attention was called to the September/October 
1964 issue of Ib~_Bg~~~f~l!~~-!n~~i~~~~-B~~!~~' vel. 2, no. 5, 
on pages 1-7 of which appeared an address entitled, "Physics, 
Biophysics, and the St~dy of Vision" by Professor Haldan Keffer 
Hartline. The address was delivered in response to Dr. 
Hartline's receiving the annual Albert A. Michelson Award at the 
Case Institute of Technology, now a part of Case Western Reserve· 
University, Cleveland, Ohio. Michelson, incidentally, was 
America's first Nobel laureate in the sciences. The award was 
given to Hartline in recognition of his "noteworthy research on 
the sense organs and how they relate the behavior of animals to 
their physical environment and especially for classical 
discoveries in the physics and biology of visual perception." 

To the 800 persons attending the Award dinner Dr. 
Hartline outlined his concept of the history of visual science, 
pointing out that, "Optics, as its very name implies, arose from 
a curiosity as to how we see." He added that this question was 
one of the first to be examined by the emergent science of the 
Renaissance. Further, "Kepler, taking time from his pioneering 
work in astronomy, applied his mathematical genius to the 
subject of vision. After him, optics as a branch of physical 
science fluorished-----and fluorishes today. With it, the lens­
maker's art developed into a robust technology, yielding a 
wealth of optical instruments for the benefit of all branches of 
science. Physiological optics developed steadily after Kepler 
and reached its culmination in the work of Hermann von 
Helmholtz." 

Hartline then reviewed visual science evolvements in 
biophysics, psychophysics, visual photochemistry, psychology, 
neurophysiology, and a long string of other disciplines as 
intimately related to vision. 

That optometry continues to undergo changes in role as 
well as in technology seems obvious to many of us, especially to 
those of us curious about our historical developments. Rare, 
however, is the finding of reliable contemporary descriptions of 
such trends, for it is difficult for one to describe trends of 
which he or she is a part. An exception is an article entitled, 
"A Century in Eye Care", an interview of Dr. Adrian Hill, chief 
optometrist at the Oxford Eye Hospital, Oxford, England, by 
Janet Voke, herself an optometrist with a family 



-55-

background rich in visual science. 
5, 1986 issue of Q~tgmgt~~-!99~~, 
477-482. 

It appears in the July 
Vol. 26, No. 14, pp. 

In this instance Dr. Hill has been on the staff of 
the hospital only eight years, having taken over the 
responsibility of his predecessor of 35 prior years. The 
hospital itself is celebrating its centenary. In response 
to Janet Voke's penetrating questions Dr. Hill describes 
the evolvement of the optometrist's role not merely in 
terms of the expanded areas of "optical correction of 
defective signs" but also in "the assessment of most 
aspects of visual dysfunctions." 

The latter includes ophthalmic electro-diagnosis, 
ocular ultrasound scans or biometry, special psychometric 
investigations such as dark adaptometry and spatial 
contrast sensitivity, involvement with facial prosthesis, 
color vision evaluation, low vision reading aid 
assessment, domestic lighting aid, orthoptic counseli~g, 
and consultation in preschool, industrial, and 
occupational visual screening. 

Clearing out his accumulated files, a dutiful 
retirement pastime, OHS member, D.G. Hummel, O.D. reports 
finding a memo to himself stating that the late Arthur P. 
Wheelock, O.D. was the last male lineal descendant of 
Reverend Wheelock, founder of Dartmouth College, and that 
Dr. Wheelock's grandmother was a Prentice. 

"Where Have All Our Records Gone?" is the title of 
an article by Emma Cobb in the Fall 1986 issue of emg~iS~D 
~g~it~gg_gf_!n~gnti9D§_~n9_!gsbn9l9s~~ Vol. 2, No. 2, PP• 
8-9. She reminds us that with our rapid technological 
developments much of the electronically recorded 
information of the world has already become inaccessible 
by reason of the dismantling, abandoning, or discarding of 
compatible retrieval systems. For example, a big batch of 
microfilm copies of every enemy document captured by U.S. 
forces during the Vietnam War cannot be read by any 
instrument known to exist still today. Similarly, the 
five thousand reels of magnetic tape records of the 1960 
census became completely irretrievable by 1975 because the 
type of UNIVAC required no longer existed. Says the U.S. 
Committee on the Records of Government "the United States 
is in danger of losing its memory." 



-56-

Can this happen in Optomet~y? Indeed, I can cite a 
pe~sonal expe~ience. About 25 yea~s ago I decided to study the 
~elationship between d~ive~·s vision and highway accidents 
involving many thousand testing and inte~views ~eco~ds f~om 
a~ound the count~y. By the time I had gotten the va~iously 
supplied data t~ansc~ibed into pencil dots on a special compute~ 
fo~m the compute~ equipment at my unive~sity had been ~eplaced 
by a diffe~ent model which could not ~ead my fo~m. Locating a 
compatible model at an institution about 100 miles away, I had 
to ship my ca~tons of data the~e fo~ t~ansfe~~ing to a tape 
which could be ~ead by ou~ newe~ model. F~om this I prepa~ed 
and published a repo~t based on the single factor of visual 
acuity. 

I then anticipated doing a whole se~ies of analysis of 
othe~ visual factors, but a couple of years ago I was info~med 
that my unive~sity has again changed its computer model. The 
tape is now collecting dust on my office shelf. 

The f~agility of early ~eco~ds and archival evidence has 
long been heavily felt by histo~ians. No~ is it seeming to 
change. 

H.W H. 

OHS membe~ Jay M. Enoch is convinced that the co~nea of 
the eye of a bull's head rhyton (d~inking ho~n> dated 1550-1500 
BC was designed to function optically. The steatite (soapstone> 
artifact is located in Case 51, No. 1368, at the He~akleion 
Museum on the Island of Crete. It was b~ought originally f~om 
the Little Palace in the ancient city of Knossos on the no~th 
coast of the island. 

D~. Enoch p~esented the a~guments fo~ his conclusion in a 
pape~ ~ead at the Inte~national Symposium on Visual Optics, 
Tir~enia, Italy, May 2-4, 1986, the p~oceedings of which a~e 
being published by Sp~inge~ Verlag, Heidelbe~g, West Ge~many. A 
copy of D~. Enoch's manusc~ipt is on file in the Inte~national 
Library, A~chives, and Museum of Optometry <ILAMO> in St. Louis, 
Missou~i. 

Reviewing fi~st the glass technology of the era, secondly 
the definitive att~ibutes of a lens, thi~dly the obse~vable 
optical t~aits of the bull's head co~nea in question, and 
fou~thly the ancient lite~a~y refe~ences to pupilla~y functions 
and imag~s and their cultural inte~p~etations, he concludes 
that, though also deco~ative, "This is the fi~st clea~ evidence 
of lens use." 



-57-

"A Brief History of Ophthalmic Publications in 
America" by Daniel M. Albert, M.D., in the May 1986 issue 
of Qebib~lmglgg~, Vol. 93, no: s, pp. 699-708 is an 
excellent commentary on ophthalmology-related publications 
that have appeared, though not necessrily printed, in 
America. The author points out that, "If you go all the 
way back to colonial America, you will find that there 
were few American medical books and fewer formally trained 
physicians." He mentions as a prototype the manuscript by 
Cotton Mather <1663-1728) entitled "The Angel of 
Bethesda," reprinted in 1972 by the American Antiquarian 
Society, Barre, Massachusetts, "compiling all the medical 
knowledge available in the colonies." Chapter 32 is said 
to be devoted to the eye and includes comments on "the use 
of spectacles." 

The first American textbook on ophthalmology was by 
Dr. George Frick in 1823. It included a section on 
refraction which "was merely a three page definition of 
myopia and presbyopia," though a portrait of Dr. Frick 
shows him wearing spectacles. 

Dr. Albert's only other reference to ophthalmic 
optical aspects of ophthalmic history is in the citing of 
the long title of an 1836 book on the eye by a New York 
oculist named William Clay Wallace which includes," ••• with 
Remarks on the Use of Medicines as Substitutes for 
Spectacles." 

The 63 references are virtually all related to the 
medical and surgical aspects of ophthalmology, i.e., with 
almost nothing in visual science and ophthalmic optical 
science. Such a fine bibliography of ophthalmological 
history could well provide a convenient opportunity for 
someone to trace the chronology of ophthalmological 
involvement with the basic visual and optical functions of 
the eye, including the many centuries of use of 
spectacles. 

Is there a hobbyist who collects optical company 
publications? I have in mind catalogs, instrument 
manuals, instructional brochures, and perhaps even 
promotional leaflets, the very items that are normally 
presumed to have only highly transient value and are 
typically disposed of immediately upon their recognition. 
To suggest that they should be preserved would make most 
of us groan. Storage space alone would be prohibitive. 



-58-

Just dating each item would be a task, say nothing of setting 
up a workable system of filing and indexing for retrieval 
purposes, an archival nightmare. But fortunately many a 
hobbyist can enjoy the most time-consuming drudgery when it is 
in pursuit of his or her recreational objective. 

Might there be merit in such a collection? Surely most 
of us would smile a bit amusedly at any expression of assurance 
of its great value. But is not the lack of apparent merit true 
of the major share of the activity we undertake? Indeed, think 
about that slowly. Just thinking about it may be the most 
meritorious activity you have undertaken in days. But now I 
return to my question. 

Much, but not all, of the information in optical company 
publications occurs in the advertisement section of professional 
journals. Some, but not all, librarians remove and destroy the 
advertising pages of journals before permanently binding them, 
thus to save shelf space and literary bulkiness. A 
justification of such policy is the utter repetitiveness of the 
advertisment content. 

Such practices and attitudes of course are what explain 
the rapid disappearance of company publications, whether in the 
form of journal advertising or commercial handouts. They are 
virtually never copyrighted, which would at least provide for 
their accumulation in a federal office. They are rarely dated, 
thus undermining their eventual documentary value. 
Nevertheless, their technical content and descriptions are 
characteristically precise in spite of being a bit flowery,for a 
company must stand behind its claims if it wants to survive. 
They often include excellent photographic and schematic 
illustrations unavailable elsewhere. Many a practitioner relies 
heavily, and perhaps sometimes solely, on the continuing 
education he derives from current optical company publications. 

What prompted these thoughts? Some months ago I had come 
across the newsletter of a local medical historical society 
which bears the delightful title, §o~~~~ggt_&Kt~~Si· Wondering 
if I could come up with an anaLogously clever title for the 
~~Q~tl~§~ I momentarily came up with In~_Qg~el~-B~gbi_b~OE and 
then wondered how that had come into my historical 
consciou~ness. It seemed to me that when I was a very young 
optometry student I had heard an "old timer'' refer to "double 
aught lenses" as the prevailing choice of his era. 



-59-

I hastily wrote David Cline of the Dictionary of 
Visual Science knowing that in his very early years he had 
been employed by a spectacle firm. He vaguely remembered 
the term and eventually referred me to a 1912 American 
Optical Company catalog on page 204 of which are the 
detailed sizes of uncut and edged spectacle lenses and 
segments. The "00" eye size was the median of seven 
sizes, namely, 2,1,o,oo,ooo,oooo, and Jumbo, ranging in 
bevel edge lenses from 26 x 35 mm to 37.4 x 45.4 mm 
respectively. Numerous other size designations are also 
listed, but it appears that the "00" was the most common 
choice of the era. 

Whether it was pronounced oh oh; double oh• double 
aught, double ought, double naught, double nought, or 
double zero, is not revealed, but perhaps a few of our 
older readers will try to recall and inform me. 

But again I have digressed form the issue of optical 
company literature. The 1912 American Optical Company 
book is a magnificently bound hard-cover volume of 350 
pages of heavy glossy paper with a well edited 1833-1912 
historical chapter profuse with excellent photographs. 
Each category of ophthalmic optical products is introduced 
with sophisticated text material and technical 
explanation. Like the best of textbooks a table of 
contents is included and an index of more than 400 entries 
ranging from "AdJustable Guards" to "Zylonite Rims". 

Browsing further in the optometry library at Indiana 
University I discovered another catalog entitled 
"Ophthalmic Lenses and Accessories", a Bausch 8< Lomb 
Optical Co. catalog of "Lenses, Frames, Magnifiers, and 
Readers" dated 1916. Also bound in hard cover with 150 
pages of fine gloss paper, a historical chapter, several 
technological chapters with substantial commentary, 
photographs, charts, graphs, an extensive table of 
contents, and even item-by-item prices. 

Both books are so fascinating that either might well 
be reprinted today for display as conversation pieces in 
optometrists' reception rooms. Quite evidently these and 
other companies' catalogs of similar quality were 
distributed gratuitously en masse to the firms· thousands 
of optometric customers. But how many of these books 
remain? I would be surprised if even a hundred now exist 
in the whole world. Yet these are impressive enough to 
grace any book shelf. Comme~ally sponsored publications 
of less profesaional appearance have long since vanished, 
I fear. 



-60-

But if someone has made a hobby o~ collecting such items, 
what interesting historical concept might be derived therefrom 
other than the documentation of technological changes in 
eyewear? Well, from my own personal background in optometric 
academics, I would find the comparative role of industry in 
professional education a theme worth exploring. Surely others 
would discover other interesting theorems to pursue. 

H.W H. 

Drs. Robert F. Heitz and Jay M. Enoch have co-authored a 
paper entitled "Leonardo de Vinci: An Assessment of his 
Discourse on Image Formatin in the Eye" to appear in the 
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Visual Optics, 
Tirrenia, Italy, May 2-4, 1986, published by Springer Verlag, 
Heidelberg, West Germany. A copy of the manuscript is being 
placed in the International Library, Archives, and Museum of 
Optometry, St. Louis, MO, USA. 

The authors have studied carefully Leonardo's optical and 
ocular discussions in Manuscript D. . They point out that he 
"struggled with the problem of imagery in the eye ••• and sought 
to better define the seat of visual excitation." In spite of 
his numerous optical diagrams, analogies with the camera 
obscura, and his suggested analysis involving the submergence of 
the observing eye in water, he never seems to have understood 
the optics. They add, "It was impossible, of course, for 
Leonardo to know that the re-inversion of the image occurs in 
the brain." 

According to a recently received news release from the 
Optometric Extension Program, the "21 Point Analytical 
Sequence," more familiarly called the "21 points," was first 
presented to the profession by Dr. A. M. Skeffington as his 
recommended standard optometric procedure in 1929. In August of 
this year, 57 years later, Pacific University College of 
Optometry and the Optometric Extension Program jointly sponsored 
a Conference on Theoretical and Clinical Optometry to reexamine 
the long~standing sequence and to initiate clinical research to 
determine its relevance today. The 40 attendees of the 
Conference will gather data on the 21 points during the coming 
year and compare their results at a second conference next 
summer. 



-61-

In a very real sense, the 21 points have become an 
historical as well as a clinical phenomenon. An 
interesting byproduct of this study could well be an 
assemblage of facts and documentary details outlining how 
Skeffington derived the sequence and its subsequent 
numerical modifications. Would that the participants 
undertake that aspect, too. Otherwise its genesis shall 
remain a bit mysterious. 

These are the first five words of tha beautiful epic 
poem Evangeline, A Tale of Acadie, by Henry Wadsworth 
Longfellow (1807-1882). The poem was a reading assignment 
in my early teens, some 57 years ago. The opening 
sentence was all I remembered, believably because I 
struggled with the meaning, spelling, and pronunciation of 
"primeval," a truly sophisticated adjective in my rural 
midwestern hometown. 

Though reared in a community with a circumstantial 
lifestyle not greatly different from that of 18th century 
Acadia, I really could not then appreciate the sentimental 
depth of the poem. Perhaps that was because I was in my 
teens, whereas Longfellow was almost 40 when he authored 
the tale. Born in the Acadian periphery of Portland, 
Maine, only 50 years after the actual historical event, he 
may have had a slight cultural advantage as well. 

So much for my rationalizatin. What prompted my 
very late interest in the poem was a recent vacation 
motoring tour through Nova Scotia, Canada, the heart of 
former Acadia, where many traces of the mass expulsion of 
a people remain. I bought the book and read the poem 
again, this time with incredible enjoyment and feeling. 

Only one passage escaped my grasp, and surprisingly 
it related to a bit of visual folklore, as follows: 

"Oft in the barns they <the children> climbed to the 
populous nests on the rafters, 
"Seeking with eager eyes that wondrous stone, which 
the swallow 
"Brings from the shore of the sea to restore the 
sight of its fledglings; 
"Lucky was he who found that stone in the nest of 
the swallow!" 

I hope that one of our readers may know the mystery of the 
wondrous stone and why finding it was lucky. 



-62-

The only other reference of special optometric interest, 
many pages later, is a clause in description of the children's 
father, as follows: 

" ••• and glasses with horn bows sat astride on his nose, 
with a look of wisdo~ supernal." 

One can wonder if the Acadians of the mid-18th century really 
had glasses at all or if Longfellow was reflecting his own mid-
19th century experience. 

H.W H. 

In 1912, Cambridge University Press printed a volume 
selected and arranged by Sir Joseph Larmer and James Thomson 
entitled ~g!!@~t@~_feQ@~~-in_fb~~i~~--Q~-~ngin@@~ing_e~-~-m@§ 
!bgm~go~ Four hundred and eighty four pages in length and 
containing sixty eight papers on diverse physical subjects as 
fluid motion, elasticity and liquefaction, the collection served 
as a memorial to the long career of British physicist and 
engineer James Thomson <1822-1892). Older brother of the better 
remembered Sir William Thomson <Lord Kelvin 1824-1907>, James 
spent most of his career in the posts of professor of civil 
engineering at Queen's College, Belfast (1857-73) and later at 
Glascow (1873-89) where he made new advances particularly in the 
field of fluid dynamics. From the biographical information in 
the book we learn that James Thomson also introduced twenty­
eight terms into the scientific vocabulary including radian 
<1873), interface <1874) and ergometer (1876). His active 
career in academics came to a close in 1889. 

In the autumn, shortly before the time for returning to 
Glasgow, a new calamity befel Prof. Thomson, the failure 
of his sight. The retina became detached in the middle, 
with the result that in a few days he could no longer see 
to read and could only write with difficulty, because the 
part of the page before him directly in the middle of the 
field of view seemed always to disappear, or to become so 
distorted, that the words written on the paper could not 
be distinguished. Happily total blindness never came on; 
even to the end of his life he could see light and 
colours and could to a certain extent recognize the faces 
oi friends. When he became more used to the deprivation 
of clear sight, he learned to write with a blunt black 
pencil on large sheets of cartridge paper, or better 
still, with chalk on a large slate, for his wife or one 
of his daughters to 



-63-

copy. Dictating always seemed to be difficult to 
him. By the aid of a magnifying glass and by 
directing his eyes a little above or below the thing 
he wanted to examine, he contrived sometimes to 
study a diagram or a formula which thus had its 
image on an uninjured part of the retina. The 
immediate result of his failure of sight was that he 
felt obliged to resign his professorship. Under 
this affliciton his wonderful patience again 
asserted itself. He never complained nor was the 
sweetness of his disposition ruffled in the 
slightest degree. He still employed his mind with 
scientific work, even under all the inevitable 
disadvantages, and took relaxation in listening to 
the reading aloud o+ literature, and continued his 
interest in politics. <p.87) 

After James' death in 1892, his brother William 
submitted a paper to the Royal Society which contained 
notes on aspects of vision made by James. Printed below 
is the full content of this paper as found on page 459 of 
said book. 

ON CERTAIN APPEARANCES OF BEAMS OF LIGHT SEEN AS 
IF EMANATING FROM CANDLE OR LAMP FLAMES 

About the end of last January, when my brother was 
fully occupied in writing his paper on the Trade 
Winds for the Bakerian Lecture, he called my 
attention to the well-known beams or ladders of 
light seen below or above a lamp flame viewed with 
partially-closed eyelids, and he gave me verbally an 
explanation of the phenomenon which surprised me 
very much. By some simple and interesting trials 
with my own eyes, which he explained to me how to 
make, I was perfectly convinced that his explanation 
was correct, and believing it, as I still believe 
it, to be new, I urged him to write a short paper on 
the.subject for the Royal Society, but not to let it 
interfere with his work for the Bakerian Lecture, 
and he undertook to do so as soon as might be after 
being freed from this work. We hoped,somewhat 
confidently, that he might be able to give the thus 
promised paper before the end of the present session 
of the Royal Society. That hope has not been 
fulfilled, and I had offered to the Secretaries a 
communication describing my recollection of what my 
brother had told me, when his son found a memorandum 
of date 18th October, 1891, and a little book of 
notes of date 29th December, which tell the story 
better than I could have told it, and which, 
therefore, though not completed in proper form for 



-64-

publication, I now give in the unfinished form in which 
they have been found, with only a somewhat more clear 
drawing, and description of drawing, substituted for the 
rough sketch found in his note of date October 18, 1891. 

PROPOSED PROBABLE PAPER FOR THE <?> SOCIETY, BY J.T. ON 
THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF CERTAIN APPEARANCES OF BEAMS OF 
LIGHT AS IF EMANATING FROM CANDLE OR LAMP FLAMES. ' 

DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING. 
<The drawing represents a vertical section of the eye, 
eyelids, and watery prismoids, through FF', the axis of 
the eye. The large number of parallel lines outside 
represent rays of light coming from a flame several feet 
or yards away in the direction ofF', to the eyelids, the 
prismoids, and the undisturbed outer suface of the cornea 
between the prismoids. The lines within the eye below 
FF' represent the convergence to F, the image of the 
flame, of those of the external rays from the flame which 
fall on the undisturbed portion of the surface of the 
cornea. The lines within the eye above FF' represent 
rays disturbed by the prismoid of the upper eyelid which, 
incident on the retin.a at bbb, give the perception as if 
of light coming from without in the direction of the 
dotted lines outside the eye. It is this perception that 
constitutes the appearance of the downward beams or 
ladders of light, due to the prismoid of the ·upper 
eyelid. ·The rays disturbed by the prismoid of the lower 
eyelid, in the position represented in the diagram, are 
all stopped by the lower part of the iris. 

Looking now at the diagram, we understand perfectly 
that if, with the eyeball and flame unchanged, the upper 
eyelid be gradually raised a little, the uppermost of the 
rays coming inwards from the prismoid will fall on the 
upper part of the iris and will be stopped by this 
screen. Thus, the length of bbb upwards form F is 
diminished, until all the beams from the prismoid are 
stopped by the iris, and the length of the apparent beams 
below the flame correspondingly diminishes to zero. When 
tbe.upper eyelid is wide open the flame is seen without 
any appearance of the beams below it. We also understand 
readily from the diagram how, if the lower eyelid is 
lifted a little without any change in the position of the 
upper eyelid, beams both 



-65-

above and below the flame are seen. We also 
conclude that if, with the eyelids fixed 

relatively to the head, the head is moved while the 
eyeball remains with its axis in the direction of 
the flame, we see beams of light above the flame 
when the head is turned upwards, and beams of light 
below the flame when the head is turned downwards. 
Also that if the eyelids are partially closed, as in 
the diagram~ beams will be seen both above and below 
the flame when the head, carrying the eyelids with 
it, is turned slightly up from the position shown in 
the diagram. Also that if the eyelids be wide open, 
instead of half closed as shown in the diagram, no 
beams, either above or below the flame, will be seen 
when the two eyelids are equidistant, or nearly 
equidistant, above and below the middle of the 
pupil. When the head, with the eyelids, is turned 
downwards, so as to bring the upper eyelid across 
the aperture of the pupil beams of light are seen 
below the flame; and when the head, with the 
eyelids, is turned upwards so as to bring the lower 
eyelid across the middle of the pupil, beams of 
light produced by the prismoid of the lower eyelid 
are seen above the flame.] 



-66-

NOTES ON QUASI-RAY BEAMS OF LIGHT FROM CANDLES, OR OTHER 
LUMINOUS SPOTS. 

Date of Note, 29th Decmeber, 1891. 

I have noticed decidedly this morning to the 
following effect: 

In some cases <the nature of which I intend to note 
further on> I found that, when seeing a small gas flame 
with apparent descending tail (or quasi beam of rays>, I 
could, by lowering the upper eyelid, cut off vision of 
the flame, while leaving the tail visible; and, by still 
further lowering the upper eyelid, I could cut off the 
upper part of the tail, leaving the lower part, the part 
remote from the flame, quite visible as before. The 
contrast between lowering the upper eyelid and lowering a 
screen <a card, for instance> in fron of the eye was very 
remarkable. In the lowering of the card or other screen, 
the tail vanishes before th eflame is eclipsed; but in 
lowering the eyelid the flame is eclipsed first. 

In some attitudes I could not bring out these 
phenomena. I did find them when awake in bed early in 
the morning, head on pillow and light coming down from a 
gas flame obliquely to the eye. Point to which eye was 
directed seemed to do best when taken at an altitude 
<angular> somewhat above the gas flame. Afterwards, this 
same morning, I found I could see the phenomenon when 
standing upright and looking at image of gas in mirror. 
Ray from image ascending obliquely; eyesight directed 
above image in looking-glass. 

Again, looking at a gas flame a little above the 
level of the eye, I stood erect and elevated my face, 
directing my eyesight to above the gas; then lowered the 
upper eyelid and saw the downward tail remaining when the 
gas flame was eclipsed by the eyelid. The theory of all 
this is clear to me, and in agreement with what I have 
previously devised. - J.T. 



-67-

Take notice that to get the phenomena above 
sketched out to show themselves, the edge of upper 
eyelid, where roots of eyelashes are situated, must 
not shadow the prismoid when the eyelid is lowered 
enough to cover the pupil from the direct rays of 
the candle or gas flame. After the candle is cut 
off from the pupil, the direct rays from the flame 
must still be reaching the prismoid. This, I think, 
tallies with the experimental conditions under which 
the tail was seen when the flame was eclipsed by 
eyelid. - J.T. 

P.S. - Same day , 29th December. On a little 
further consideration I notice that the elevation of 
the face is of no importance. It is only the 
elevation of the line of special direction of the 
eyesight <axis of the eye> relatively to the line 
from flame to eye that is important. - J.T. 

NOTES ON QUASI-LIGHT BEAMS 
<FOR PAPER. > 

Often I fail to see the apparently ascending 
beam above the candle or gas flame. But I find that 
by very nearly shutting the eye I can see the 
ascending beam going up very high and the descending 
one at same time. On bringing my open hand down 
from above as if to cut off the ascending beam I see 
the beam as if between my eye and my hand, and the 
flame begins to be eclipsed before the beam is cut 
off, or even dim{nished. 

NOTE BY THE PRESIDENT OF DATE JUNE 16. 

I had psked many friends well acquainted with 
optical subjects whether they knew of this 
explanation of the luminous beams, and all said "no" 
until yesterday evening, at the soiree of the Royal 
Society, when Professor Silvanus Thompson 
immediately answered by giving the explanation 
himself, and telling me that he had given it to his 
pupils in his lectures on optics, as an illustration 
of a concave cylindrical lens. He did not know of 
the explanation ever having been published otherwise 
than in his lectures. I have myself also looked in 
many standard books on optics, and could find no 
trace of intelligence on the subject. It seems 
quite probable, therefore, that, of all the millions 
of millions of men that have seen the phenomenon, 
none, within our three thousand years of sceintific 
history, had ever thought of the true explanation 
except Professor Silvanus Thompson and my brother. 



-68-

Further details on the conversations between Silvanus 
Thompson and Lord Kelvin are found in a footnote on p. 919 of 
b1i~_Qf_bQ~g~~@!Y1Q by Silvanus Thompson <MacMillan and Co., 
191 0) • 

I cannot forbear adding here a note of an incident 
illustrative of Lord Kelvin's personality, though it 
concerns myself. At the Conversazione of the Royal 
Society of June 15, 1892, Lord and Lady Kelvin were 
receiving their guests at the head of the staircase, and 
it came to the turn of Mrs. Silvanus Thompson and myself 
to be received. Lord Kelvin literally seized me, and 
hurriedly said to me, pointing to an electric glow-lamp 
hanging a few yards away, "Look at th~t lamp• now half 
shut your eyesa tell me what you see..... I said, "I see 
irregular luminou~ 
streaks extending in somewhat oblique bundles above and 

below." "What are they due to?" he asked. uoh, I have 
always supposed them to be due to the film of moisture at 
the edge of the eyelids, acting as an irregular 
cylindrical lens." "Who told you·that? Where did you 
find that?" he asked excitedly~ But just then a hand was 
laid on his sleeve, and a gentle voice behind us said, 
"William, there are people waiting." Later in the 
evening he resumed the subject, telling me how his 
brother, while lying in bed ill, had studied these 
apparent rays and given him this explanation; and he 
asked me whether I had written anything upon the 
phenomenon. 

Had it not been for William Thomson's comment that in all 
probability through all of history only his brother and Silvanus 
Thompson had deduced the casue of the optical phenomenon, I 
would have left this blurb stand as is, but that statement hit 
me as possibly a bit overstated. So I did a little literature 
searching, as did Lord Kelvin, in sources that would have been 
readily available to him. My first stop was Helmholtz's 
I~~~~1§~_QQ_Eb~§i2l29i£~l-Qe~iS§ which surely William Thomson 
would have been very familiar as he and Helmholtz were 
extremely close friends. As to whether William read German well 
I have not·established except that in later life he used to 
tell how his father packed-up the family one summer and traveled 
to Germany for the sole purpose of allowing the family to become 
fluent in the German language. Apparently from William's story 
he never quite became a German scholar <Life of Lord Kelvin, 
p.l7.) Whether he did or not appears somewhat irrelevant as 
Helmholtz does not refer in detail to the entoptic phenomena 
resulting 



-69-

from the tear layer. Concerning beams of light or stripes 
he states only "The stripes are most pronounced near the 
edge of the eyelid when the lid arrives in front of the 
pupil, and are due to the thin concave film of moisture 
stretched from the cornea to the edge of the eyelid" 
(p.207 Part 1, Dover English edition 1962>. Perhaps 
Helmholtz felt the above statement was sufficient and left 
the rest to the reader? If so, William Tomson missed 1·t 

' if he read it at all. 

Interestingly, another source on entoptic phenomena 
that would surely have been available to William Thomson 
was authored in English by James Jago M.D. and entitled 
5otgetis~~-~itb_it~-Y~~~-io_fb~~ig!gg~_so2_~~2isin~ <John 
Churchill and Sons, London, 1864.> This 188 page book 
with its seven chapters explains and illustrates entoptic 
phenomena better than any book I have ever seen. Chapter3 
entitled "Apparitions from Eyelashes, Eyelids, and 
Conjunctional Fluids" contains a discussion of the beams 
of light associated with a candle flame and is complete 
with an explanation of the cause and four diagrams. 

After reading Dr. Jago's book there was no doubt 
that priority for the explanation of the beams of light 
associated with a flame did not rest with James Thomson as 
his brother William had thought. At the end of Chapter 3 
Dr. Jago wrote a section called, "History of the Entoptics 
of the Eyelashes, Eyelids, and Conjuntional Fluids", the 
last paragraph of which is found below. Take particular 
note of the final sentence. 

Helmholtz, in his article on Physiological Optics, 
extracts Listing's observations without improving 
upon them. He records, however, that Meyer (1853) 
has written on the stripes of light issuing from the 
tear-prism on the lids, without giving any hint of 
the purport of the communication, and allowing it to 
be inferred that he had not himself read it. I 
think it right to repeat Helmholtz's reference, 
though I have not the means , from want of access to 
the paper, of knowing whether it contain anything 
deserving quotation. If it treats of the beams of 
light that shoot upwards and downwards when we wink 
towards a candle-flame, I may mention that I had 
accurately explained these, in ignorance of 
Listing's writings, in 1848. Hence, unless this 
historical sketch be defective, several interesting 
phenomena have been left to be first described and 
figured by the present writer. 



-70-

I would have left this story stand as is, but Dr. Jago's 
last sentence hit me as possibly a bit overstated ••••••• 

D.K.P. 

In this newsletter we try to record every known memorial 
fund, award~ medal·, lecture, honor, or other entity intended to 
prolong the memory of at least the name of an optometrist or 
friend of optometry. This effort is of course a catch-as-catch­
can procedure, as there exists no formal registry for such 
recognitions. Several of you have alerted us to instances which 
otherwise would have escaped our attention, but surely we still 
miss some. 

The latest example was a press release calling attention 
to the B~!eb_~~~~SQ~_lnt~~n~tign~!_e~~~g given each year at the 
San Jose Vision Therapy Conference, held under the auspices of 
the Optometric Extension Program Foundation. The late Ralph 
Barstow had devoted his career to advising optometrists on 
practice management and economics with a strong emphasis on 
professionalization. 

Another memorial which we now record here almost three 
years late was the rededica~ion of the Optometry Building at The 
Ohio State University as §!~nn_e~_Ec~_tl2ll· Though technically 
retired, Professor Fry is still very much alive and actively 
engaged in research and writing in his laboratory in the 
building named in his honor. 

Henry W Hofstetter 
Douglas K. Penisten, Editors 


	1986-17-04-001
	1986-17-04-002
	1986-17-04-003
	1986-17-04-004
	1986-17-04-005
	1986-17-04-006
	1986-17-04-007
	1986-17-04-008
	1986-17-04-009
	1986-17-04-010
	1986-17-04-011
	1986-17-04-012
	1986-17-04-013
	1986-17-04-014
	1986-17-04-015
	1986-17-04-016
	1986-17-04-017
	1986-17-04-018
	1986-17-04-019
	1986-17-04-020
	1986-17-04-021
	1986-17-04-022