Spectacles - The Early Days
Legend has it that St. Jerome (c. 340-420 AD) invented glasses. On more definite evidence the use of glasses in remoter antiquity has been considered. Pliny records the 'Nero princeps gladiatorium pugnas spectabat zmaragdo" and this vague reference to Nero watching gladiatorial contests with an emerald has been read to mean that he used glasses. The emerald may well have had other uses, as a gem, as the sporting of the green colours of the Emperor, as an amulet - for emeralds had a reputation for strengthening the eye - and so on. Presumably Nero was short-sighted, but what is known about his sight rather suggests the photophobia of the albino, for which indeed he may have used green glass as a protective. It is certainly a fact that myopia and the weak sight of old people was well known tot he Romans, but nowhere at that period and for many centuries subsequently is there nay reference to glasses. Indeed myopia was regarded as a permanent defec,. as is shown by the fact that Roman lawyers considered myopia a vicium perpetuum, diminishing the market value of a slave; and as for presbyopia, the only way Roman patricians knew of overcoming it was by getting a slave to read to them.
Travellers' tales have made China the original centre of glasses. The earliest evidence concerning glasses in China is, however, of considerably later period that the time they made their appearance in Europe. The Chinese probably learnt about glasses indirectly from Europe through the intermediary of the inhabitants of Malacca.
Magnifying glasses of a sort were known and may have been used in antiquity. The effect of a glass bowl filled with water in showing up details was recognized, as can be seen from a reference in Seneca. Furthermore, Pliny relates that such bowls were used by physicians for burning. The glass bowl was obviously used as a condensing lens, though it was a wonder to the Romans that cold water should be able to burn. Dimly the biconvex lens was already known.
Alhazen had carried the theory of vision to a sufficiently advanced level almost to have been able to introduce the use of lens. But it was left for subsequent centuries actually to achieve it. The first recognition of these possibilities seems to have come with Roger Bacon, as seen from a passage not devoid of gross errors. He discusses the use of segments of spheres and shows that letters and small objects on which they are placed appear magnified. "For this reason such an instrument is useful to old persons and to those with weak sight, for they can see any letter, however small, if magnified enough."
The observation that segments of spheres magnify was not original with Bacon; what constitutes an advance is the clear recognition of their use for old people and those with weak sight. If it was not eye-glasses that Bacon had in mind, he advocated the loupe or magnifying glass, the forerunner of spectacles.
A painting of Virgil using spectacles but
glasses were not invented for at least 1500
years after his death.
.
Click photo to enlarge
References to glasses begin to crowd at the beginning of the 14th century; they, therefore, must have attracted considerable attention towards to the end oft the 13th century. The first medical reference is by Bernard Gordon, Professor of Montpellier (1305). He recommends a collyrium of such potency "that it will enable those whose sight is weak from old age to read without glasses." Guy de Chauliac (1353) likewise recommends collyria, but adds that when they do not help, recourse should be had to glasses. Incidentally, collyria were time-honoured means for strengthening the sight. Ali ben Isa has laid down explicitly that they who do not see in the near, "a condition which mainly affects old people" should use styptic medicines; whilst those who see well near by but not in the distance, require medicines which give moist nutrition and bring the moist principle to the eye.
Attempts to trace the invention of glasses to a particular person have had little success. Fraciscus Redi, a distinguished and learned Professor of Medicine in Pisa, in letters to a friend in 1676, writes that he has a manuscript dated 1299, in the preface of which a reference is made to the recently invented glasses; " I find myself so oppressed by the years that I no longer have the strength to read or write without the glasses known as spectacles, lately invented for the comfort of the old souls who have become weak-sighted." Redi further quotes from a sermon (1305) by Fra Giordano da Rivalto: " It is not yet twenty years that the art of making glasses was invented; this enables good sight and is one of the best as well as the most useful of arts that the world possess." Fra Giordano resided together with Fra Alessandro da Spina in the monastery of S. Catherina at Pisa, and Redi extracted from the manuscript chronicle of the monastery two references to Spina. One is an obituary notice, Spina having died in 1313, two years after Fra Giordano: "Brother Alexander da Spina, a modest and good man, had the capacity to make things he had seen or of which he had heard. He made glasses and freely taught the art to others. Glasses had previously been made by someone else who, however, would not say anything about them." Another reference in that chronicle speaks in the same tone and to the same effect, emphasizing that in contrast tot he secretiveness of the original inventor, da Spina freely communicated the secret of the art he had copied.
Thus while Alexander da Spina, a Dominican monk, is generally accepted as the re-inventor of glasses, the original inventor is lost to history. It is in fact doubtful whether there was such as one; it is just as likely that the value of glasses was found empirically towards the end of the 13th century owing to the accidental use of the somewhat plano-convex glass of some forms of window-plane. Bacon, who had the requisite theoretical knowledge, did not apparently get as far as glasses, whilst the claims for Salvino Armato of Florence are largely based on the excessive zeal of a Florentine historian, Domenico Manni.
Manni relates that a Florentine antiquary saw a tomb-stone inscription in the now demolished church of St. Maria Maggiore at Florence which read:: "Here rests Salvino d'Armato of the Armati of Florence, the inventor of spectacles. God pardons his sins. A.D. 1317." Manni held that Armato was the secretive inventor spoken of in the references to da Spina, and this flimsy view has somehow gained widespread acceptance.
What looked like more conclusive evidence was published in 1845 by Casemaecker of Ghent. A rather lurid story is told of Roger Bacon - incidentally translated into a Belgian - fleeing before Papal wrath and passing on his invention of spectacles to a friend, from whom it was that da Spina heard of glasses. Bacon himself was most anxious not to attract further attention from the Church, as he was already in heavy disfavour for his other works. To Hirschberg, this tale, along with its other lurid details, sounded like a bad detective story, and on investigating it he found that though it had been accepted as authentic history it was nothing more than pure invention written by a journalist for its reputed author, an optician.
It was therefore somewhere towards the 13th century that glasses came to be introduced. Glasses began to have a vogue towards the middle oft he 14th century; and painters and sculptors could not resist the temptation to endow biblical figures with these accessories. Glasses were even deemed necessary in the Garden of Eden. Public documents make references to them and wills dispose carefully of spectacles, for they were still a costly item. It was not till the beginning of the 16th century that the concave glass began to be used; Pope Leo X, painted by Raphael between 1517 and 1519, is depicted holding a concave lens, and a number of later references in books abound. But it was not till Kepler (1604) that the whole subject was clearly conceived.
Spectacles were not well received by the oculists. Bartisch scornfully dismisses them; he could not conceive how an eye that does not see well would see better with something in front of it. Even after Kepler, collyria for weak sight prospered. Nevertheless a great deal of practical and useful information was being collected by humber vendors of glasses, and this was well systematized in an utterly unscientific treatise published in Spain in 1623 by Daza de Valdés, "licentiate and notary of the Inquisition in the City of Seville." The use of high convex lenses after cataract operations is clearly indicated, whilst a scale of different strengths of reading glasses for different ages is laid down. For a man between 30 and 40, lenses of 2 degrees were needed; for one aged between 70 and for higher ages lenses of five to six degrees. Women required more than double the strength, for not only do they perform more delicate work, but their eyes are naturally weaker.
Almost down to the middle of the 19th century the fitting of glasses was the prerogative of untrained vendors -- mostly itinerant, who combined this business with the other occupations usual to pedlars. Oculists took but the slightest interest in the matter, at the most recommending a patient to go to a shop and select the most suitable pair obtainable. The range of choice was of course not wide. The stock in trade consisted of glasses after cataract operation, glasses for old sight, glasses for short sight and occasionally glasses for "old sight of young people". Astigmatism was not known till Young demonstrated it in his own eyes in 1801; that a correction was possible was not realized till Airy designed a suitable cylindrical lens in 1827. But even so it was not till after Donders and the subsequent introduction of retinoscopy that the treatment of astigmatism assumed any tangible practical form.
Indeed, almost until
Donders glasses met with a remarkable hostility. During the earlier part of the
19th century there was much hostility, largely the result of Beer's attitude to
them, for Beer had little more use for them than Bartisch. Weller, in a standard
book in 1832, advises against concave lenses if the eye is to be saved from
deformation, and is to preserve its ability to become far-sighted after the age
of 40. Sichel, another important contemporary writer, sees in concave lenses the
cause of old sight, whilst yet another author blames glasses for the development
of short sight. Here and there, particularly in England, an isolated voice was
raised pleading for the use of glasses. In this connection the charlatan Rowley
deserves to be remembered, as also Kitchiner and Lawrence. The trial case was
first introduced in 1843, and in the same year Küchler introduced test types for
near. Eleven years later Jaeger introduced test types for both near and
distance, though it was left to Snellen to put these on a scientific basis. By
the use of the ophthalmoscope Jaeger paved the way for the objective
determination of refractive errors, in the development of which the names of
Bowman (1859) and Cuignet (1875) stand out. But it was largely the work of
Donders that made the problems of refraction and the rational use of glasses
part of the ophthalmic creed.
The introduction of prisms into ophthalmology also dates from this period. First
introduced by Kepler, pioneer work in their clinical application had been
carried out by Wells in 1792; yet it was not till Donders in 1847 and especially
von Graefe in 1857 showed their value in muscle insufficiency, that any serious
attention was given to their possibilities.
In this later life, Benjamin Franklin developed presbyopia. As he was also myopic, he got tired of constantly having to interchange two paris of glasses. So he decided to figure out a way to make his glasses let him see both near and far. He had two pairs of spectacles cut in half and put half of each lens in a single frame to make a bifocal..
The evolution of the spectacle frame has a history of its own. The oldest spectacles, known to us from a painting by di Modena in 1352, consisted of two lenses in rims, joined centrally. The inconvenience of holding such glasses in position for any length of time led to a modification suggesting sugar-tongs. Metal rims gave way to leather ones; such a pair has been found preserved within a book. An early modification -- incidentally recommended by Savodarola -- was to secure the glasses by a tape tucked under the hat, a method rather reminiscent of the Chinese way of binding the glasses to the head gear. Various forms of lorgnette followed. The original attempts at ear-rails added greatly to the already heavy weight of spectacles. It was only towards the end of the 18th century that passable ear-rails came to be introduced. These were followed by glasses with nose-pieces having a spring, a marked advance on the much earlier nose-riders which were kept in position by the pressure the rims exercised on the nose. Gold, silver, steel, fish-bone, horn, wood and leather have all been used for the making of the spectacle frame.
From the moment of their invention, people had problems in
deciding on how to keep glasses on. The present frame with
sidepieces resting on the were invented by Edward Scarlett
in 1730. While the problems of wearing glasses nowadays
present little problems, some poor souls are less certain
about the correct way of wearing a monocle as shown by
the following article found in Sunday Times Magazine, 1999
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mrs. Mills,
I have worn a monocle on and off for the past few years. I now feel totally comfortable
and indeed confident with it. However, I am anxiouis to know the correct etiquette, if
any, that goes with the wearing of an eyepiece. I do entertain on a regular basis --
luncheons, dinners and so on -- and I'm desperate to ascertain the correct procedrues
when receiving dignitaries and, of course, female company.
DPC, Lincs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear DPC,
While the monocle should be worn whenever needed for seeing clearly (ie, reading,
shooting, neurosurgery), it is also your responsibility to maintain its silly-ass yet,
paradoxically, rakish image. So, for instance, it should be worn when eating soup so
that you can exclaim "Gosh" (or "Crikey" in extreme duress), put on a surprised
expression and allow the monocle to fall into the bowl -- a minor coup de théâtre that
will give you the moral high ground. On the other hand, when being introduced to a
lady wearing a low-cut dress, never fail to screw the monocle tightly into your eye
socket and draw! "Hellloooo" while examining her cleavage closely. Extra kudos is
obtained by sounding like Terry-Thomas.
Mrs. Mills
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I) The Ancient East
According to Herdotus the Babylonians had no physicians; the patient was brought out in the market place and all passers-by had to confer with him "to discover whether they have themselves been afflicted with the same disease or have seen others so afflicted and advise him to have recourse to the same treatment as that by which they escaped a similar disease, or as they have known to cure others."
But the code of Hammurabi with its rewards and penalties for physicians, gives a glimpse of an already more highly organized system at a period earlier than 2000 BC - long before Herodotus. The Code enacts that for a successful operation which saves the eye of the patient the fee be ten shekels of silver in the case of a "gentleman," but only five shekels and two shekels in the case of a poor man and owned slave respectively. For an unsuccessful operation on a freeman causing death or the loss of the eye, the surgeon shall have his hands cut off; in the case of a slave the penalty was to replace him by another.
Babylonian medicine was probably in the hands of the priests of the healing divinity Ea and his son Marduk, whilst surgery, as almost everywhere else in early medicine, was in the hands of a special class of skilled hand-workers. The etymological derivation of surgery is significant for ceironrgia, means handicraft. The priestly, non-operative practice was not regulated by law; but that the work of the surgeons was not altogether despised is shown by the very liberal scale of fees, for five shekels was equivalent to the yearly rent of a good type of house and represented 150 times the daily wage of a workman (1/30 shekel). The medicine of the priests was a mixture of superstition and ignorance; treatment consisted of incantations and also the administration of foul remedies - probably to disgust the demons causing the disease. It would appear that the practice of the surgeons was supervised by the priests. but it is by no means clear what their work was. It is quite possible that the greater part of the Babylonian surgery consisted of couching cataract. On the other hand, the eye operation spoken of may merely have been incision of an abscess of the lacrimal sac. The whole evidence turns on the significance of an obscure work in the code, naqabtu.
The earliest records of Egyptian medicine date back to a period not much later than the Code of Hammurabi, the Edwin Smith papyrus to c. 1600 B.C., the Brugsch papyrus to c. 1300 B.C. and the Ebers papyrus to c.1550B.C. A remarkably advanced state of ophthalmology can be inferred from the Ebers papyrus in which a section is devoted to eye disease, treatment rather than clinical descriptions being given. INcantations, foul applications and all the other manifestations of superstitious ignorance abound, but there is evidence of an advance that must have involved centuries of empirical practice and observation. The most significant development is the recognition of a number of distinct diseases. According to Ebers the Egyptians knew such conditions as blepharitis, chalazion, ectropion, entropion, trichiasis, granulations, chemosis, pinguecula, pterygium, leucoma, staphyloma, iritis, cataract, hyphaema, inflammation, ophthalmoplegia and dacryocystitis. The attempt at differential treatment implies a degree of differential diagnosis; nevertheless it was still the medicine of the temple that they practised. Indeed the Ebers papyrus is probably the work of priests, thought it is not, as was once thought, a part of the lost six medical books of Hermes containing the divine knowledge of healing as set down by the Egyptian priests.
There is no evidence that Egyptian surgery had made any marked advance; the only surgical procedure mentioned in the Ebers papyrus is epilation, a practice that must have been widely spread judging from the frequency with which epilation forceps have been found in relics of the New Empire.
Later development in Egypt brought but little advance, though there is much evidence that Egyptian ophthalmology was held in high esteem in ancient world. Herdotus relates that Cyrus of Persia sent to Amazis, the king of Egypt, for a physician to cure him of his eye trouble. The decline of Egyptian civilization brought with it that type of specialization which is based not on expert knowledge of a detailed field, but on ignorance of every other subject. Both the prophet Jeremiah and Herodotus found the country full of physicians and Herodotus remarks that "one treats only the diseases of eye, another those of the head, the teeth, the abdomen, or of the internal organs."
Nowhere in the Ancient East was medicine ever freed from the shackles of supernatural belief. Observation was coloured by preconceived notions of the demoniacal origin of disease. Here and there a glimpse of a modern procedure is seen, based on methods and premises different from ours. In Hindu medicine there is a suggestion, in the writings of Suçruta, of the earliest record of surgical treatment of cataract by couching. In Hebrew writings there is a textually obscure reference to improvement of a woman's appearance by having a golden eye (in the place of a missing one), an interesting and significant remark in the light of later history, for prostheses made of gold were the first to be used and were not introduced until the 16th century at the time of Ambroise Parè. Early Greek medicine differed in no essentials from that of the rest of the ancient world. There was the same priestcraft, the same temple worship and supernatural cures. Nor were these temples as holy as they seemed. It was only with the rise of the Asclepiadaæ, a group claiming descent from the God Aesculapius, but dissociating themselves from the priests of the temples, that Greek medicine began. One of these Asclepiads, Hippocrates the Second, also known as Hippocrates the Great, or simply as Hippocrates, born on the island of Cos, finally liberated medicine from the thrall of the supernatural. His method is the method of modern medicine; the study of disease as an objective natural phenomenon. The lasting achievements of the Greeks are commemorated in the term physician derived from fusiz, natura. Hence forth the physician was essentially no longer a priest but a naturalist.
II) The Greek Period
Ophthalmology benefited at the hands of Hippocrates and his immediate followers mainly in a negative way - in discarding the supernatural element rather than in any definite advance in the understanding of ocular disease. Their notions of the structure and function of the eye had hardly advanced, if at all, beyond that which the much older Egyptian civilization knew, though a a predecessor of Hippocrates, Alcmaeon, is credited with the discovery of the optic nerve. Their recognition of eye disease was confined to what could be observed and deduced from a knowledge limited to the superficial anatomy of the eye combined with an utter lack of understanding of ocular physiology. It is mainly in its influence on the further development of ophthalmology rather than in its achievement, that Hippocratic ophthalmology is remarkable, though it is well to recall that their treatment of some forms of conjunctivitis by irritation is still the basis of the modern treatment of trachoma. When they went astray they were wrong in the same way as the modern world is wrong when mistaken treatment is given on the strength of a wrong pathology; their failures were different in nature from the failures of those who invoked the aid of the gods or attempted to cast out the devil.
Greek medicine stretches over a period much longer than the medicine of the modern period. From the appearance of Hippocrates to the end of the fruitful period of Rome is well over 800 years. During that time there was a continual development in which ophthalmology shared. Greek medicine soon became extinguished on its native soil but developed apace, first in Alexandria and then in Rome. Of the great achievements of the Alexandrian period one can only infer by comparing the end of the purely Greek period with the beginning of the Roman period, the actual records of the Alexandrian school having been lost. The study of the human anatomy began in Alexandria, and the earliest Roman writings on the anatomy of the eye, thos of Rufus, are a measure of the advance made by the Alexandrian school. After the decline of Alexandria, it was in Rome that the Greek spirit found a home. There medicine was so entirely Greek that the Romans who practised it felt compelled to adopt Greek names for themselves and their remedies. Of the writings of this period there remain thos of Celsus, Pliny and Galen; reference to other writer whose works are lost are to be found in these and later books. Galen's strictly ophthalmic writings have been lost.
Of a period later than Galen's there are the works of Aetius of Amida and of Paul of Aegina, giving a full account of the medical and surgical practice towards the end of Byzantine period. In Celsus there are detailed descriptions of couching for cataract, of operations for ankyloblepharon, dacryocycstitis, and of plastic procedures for trichiasis, lagophthalmos and ectropion. Hypopyon is first mentioned by Galen. Of Galen's contributions to ophthalmology it is perhaps enough to say that nothing of any value was added to his anatomy of the eye till the beginning of the 17th century; his theory of vision was however a grievous errors. The later writers of the Greek period added some details to the practice of ophthalmology, but nothing whatever to its theory. The beacon lit by Hippocrates and tended by Alexandria and Rome was slowly sinking in a world plunging deeper and deeper into the mists of the Dark Ages.
Numerous busts have survived of the allegedly blind poet Homer. The earliest portrait type, which is believed to derive from a Greek original dated c.450BC, does not, however, attempt to render his sightlessness in an explicit manner, but merely shows the poet's eyes closed in deep contemplation. Not until the second century BC did any artist attempt to portray his blindness. One of the earliest such portraits, of which there are several examples extant, has been justly described as "amongst the most beautiful portrayals of poetic genius". The absence of modelling to the eyeballs, the heaviness of the raised eyebrows, all focus the viewer's attention unremittingly on the eyes.
The air of intense, almost rapt absorption and introspection exquisitely captures eyes. The air of intense, almost rapt absorption and introspection exquisitely captures the inner world of the blind poet.
Commonplace sufferers from eye complaints were not accorded any such deference. A terracotta from Tarsos of an emaciated man in a pointed cap exhibits "a pervasive air of stupidity, corruption and sordid cunning". The eye are markedly asymmetrical, one being circular, the other a half closed slit. Though the inspiration for this type may have derived from a comic mask, the mask in turn probably represents an attempt to render trachoma, an infectious eye disease which was probably very prevalent in the ancient world, as it still is in the Middle East today.
Sudden loss of sight was also depicted with some frequency in Attic red-figure,
due to the popularity of the myth of the blinding of Thamyris. On an Attic
hydria dated c.430 the musician, whose eyes are closed, registers his pain and
terror by stretching out his arms and letting his lyre slide from his lap.
Sculptors, too, attempted the subject. Pausanias tells us that a statue of
Thamyris, "already blind and holding a broken lyre", was dedicated on Mount
Helikon, sacred to the Muses. It perhaps served as a warning to over-ambitious
bards.
III) The Arabian Period
The fitfully flickering flame of civilization was saved from extinction by the invading hordes of the Eastern conquerors sweeping across the known world under the banner of Allah. As before in the case of Rome, so once again Greece took its captors captive. By means of translations, first into Syriac and later into Arabic, a knowledge of the older Greek civilization was spread throughout the Mohammadean world. Ophthalmology took a new lease of life, though progress was severely handicapped by the lack of anatomical studies. Hospitals, departmentalized very much in the modern manner, grew up and ophthalmic departments were always large and important. Many operative procedures known to Galen and his successors were perfected and some important additions were made. Numerous treatises on diseases of the eye appeared, all drawing their inspiration from the Greek writings. But the centuries of Arabian dominance lacked the eager questing that characterized Greece. The Arabians perfected old procedures rather than explored new avenues; they revered rather than challenged the authority of tradition. So heavily did the hand of dead ages lie upon them, that though there is much that is valuable in Arabian ophthalmology, it is is incidental rather than the result of a conscious effort. Not infrequently they stumbled on facts and conceptions that could not be harmonized with the traditional knowledge, but they only cut their new cloth into ill-fitting archaic patterns. They had not learnt the crowing wisdom that fact is greater than dogma. It is characteristic of the period that Ali ben Isa (Jesus Hali), Alcoatin and Ammar ben Ali wrote text-books that were used for centuries.
Like the Western civilization that followed it, the Arabian period was not a national movement. It was Arabian in language only; the men who made it were of that variety of nationality and religion that were to be found between Cordova and Bahdad. When decay ultimately overtook the Arabian renaissance, the torch had already been handed on to the rising civilization of Western Europe by means of translations into Latin from the ARabic versions of the Greek masters. Many mistakes were perpetuated by these translations and retranslations and it needed the European renaissance to direct onward the pure stream of Greek thought.
IV) The Western Middle Ages
Whilst the Arabians nursed and revived a moribund civilization, knowledge did not altogether perish in the western domains of what was once the Roman Empire. Here and there in the monasteries intellectual life flickered, and some stray sparks would be brought by Jews coming from Mohammedan lands. The beginnings of a systematized intellectual effort is found in the schools of Salerno and Montpellier. In the 11th century Constantinus Africanus, a widely travelled man and at one time teacher in Salerno, translated ARabic writings into Latin, thus beginning a movement that gathered speed with the years. But ophthalmology in those days of twilight was nevertheless little more than a debased handicraft; couching for cataract, like cutting for stone, was an operation which everyone was allowed to perform, and was in fact left to itinerant practitioners. The regular practitioners of surgery advised against eye operations and paid but scanty attention to eye disease in general. The writings of Peter the Spaniard (later Pope John XXI) are a treatise on the hygiene of the eye and contain no reference to surgical treatment. The writings of Master Zacharias, a Salernitan of the 12th century, are of little significance but those of Benevenutus Grassus are of considerable importance in the history of ophthalmology. Little is known of the author, but the book had a great influence in spreading knowledge of eye disease. The original seems to have been written in Hebrew and there are translations in Latin, Provençal, Old French and Old English. There is little new in the book; it is essentially a good summary of Greek and Arabian teaching. The importance that medieval ophthalmology attached to it can be gathered from the fact that it is the only ophthalmic incunable. Guy de Chauliac and John Yperman were influenced by Benevenutus' book, Yperman himself contributing to ophthalmology the conception of contagiosity of ophthalmia.
If the Western Middle Ages produced no memorable oculists, it produced geniuses who in their versatility contributed to ophthalmology. Roger Bacon's ophthalmic achievements include the rediscovery of the crossing of the optic nerves at the chiasma and the first mention of convex lenses for presbyopia., whilst Leonardo da Vinci either realized or came very near to realizing the principle of the camera obscura as applied to the eye.
V) The Modern Period
If the practice of ophthalmology had hardly advanced during the long centuries that followed Greek medicine at its height in the Rome of Galen, it had little to gain at the Renaissance by looking backward. Further advance in ophthalmology was made possible by the study of the anatomy of the eye, and by an understanding of the mechanism of vision. This was the wrok of the 16th and 17th centuries and paved the way for the great pathological and clinical progress of the 18th century, the century of cataract extraction and the artificial pupil. The first half of the 19th century was a remarkable period of consolidation, and the second half brought the operative treatment of glaucoma, whilst the ophthalmoscope opened a world undreamt of and raised ophthalmology to the most exact of clinical studies.
Spexz through the Ages !
Seventeenth Century Spectacles
In the seventeenth century spectacles became more widespread in use though they were still mainly for the elderly and often carried negative connotations with them. To the right is a detail from a Netherlandish morality picture in which the old man is treated as a bad example for the young to follow.
Note also the way he holds his head back; spectacles were not easy to keep in place. This man's wife who appears on the MusEYEum homepage had to support her pair of spectacles with one hand whilst holding her reading material with the other.
Spectacles in the seventeenth century did not have sides. For this simple reason we can dismiss the claims of ownership made for certain surviving spectacles in respect of figures such as King James II and Oliver Cromwell. The MusEYEum recommends that historic re-enactors engaged in battlefield displays relating to the English Civil War should also avoid spectacles if possible as the types available would have been too inconvenient for use in action.
Common Spectacles
Bow spectacles, with their distinctive curving bridges, continued in use throughout the century. The general design changed little, though certain refinements increased the flexibility and comfort for some customers. The bridge was often slit in one or two positions for added flexibility. Indeed there were some examples that had three or four such slits, requiring quite intricate craftsmanship to produce. The sprung steel bridge was introduced about 1690 resulting, in a sense, in the first combination frame since the eye rims were invariably of another material such as horn or whalebone.
The two examples shown to the left are an i
vory pair with a single slit and a state-of-the-art steel pair with three slits. Both are shown with contemporary spectacle cases.
The appearance
of the frame that was sold at the time may have been altered completely in the surviving examples by amateur attempts to add padding, seen for instance in the use of thread wound round a bridge. This sometimes occurred at the manufacturing stage as well, as was the case with the mass-produced Nuremberg wire spectacles, which were frequently bound nasally with thread. Sometimes this thread has perished meaning that the surviving antique has lost its original appearance when in use and is therefore liable to historic misinterpretation.
The highest quality frames were made in German centres such as Nuremberg and
Regensburg and optical goods from these centres would sometimes be imported to
England. The German craft was regulated earlier than in England, the Nuremberg
Spectacle Makers Guild issuing a regulatory code in the previous century, as
early as the 1530s.
The Nuremberg-type one-piece spectacles were very common and persisted into the
eighteenth century. Dating individual examples is almost impossible without
additional contextual evidence.
Spectacles of this type were sometimes supplied in a paper envelope or provided
with a wooden dug-out case, examples of which can sometimes be dated and which
are very collectable.
The Worshipful Company of Spectacle Makers (SMC)
King Charles I granted a charter to this City of London livery company in 1629 probably with the prime motivation of earning money for the Royal treasury. Several spectacle-makers, notably John Alt, had previously been associated with the Brewers Company. In the seventeenth century the company made 'visits' to business premises in the City and confiscated sub-standard products. These were later smashed ceremonially on the London Stone in Cannon Street.
The SMC particularly disapproved of leather frames, a forcibly held position that might explain the growth in popularity among the makers for using horn. Leather frames were seized from the noted optician John Yarwell by the Company’s inspection team in 1692. The SMC was generally more concerned about lens quality, however; hence the search of April 1669 when they smashed inferior glass lenses but left some decidedly poor quality whited copper frames well alone.
Masterpiece Spectacles
Many of the most wonderful examples of the spectacle-maker’s art to be found in
museums are, of course, quite untypical. The antiques trade has caused perhaps
too much attention to be paid to prestige pairs, for example the Nuremberg
‘Masterpiece’ frames made by qualifying apprentices. These are extremely rare;
they were also made at Regensburg though none are known to have survived from
that city. The BOA Museum has one by Melchior Schelke dated 1663, made out of
buffalo horn with a filigree pattern of hearts and clover leaves.
Near identical frames were still being made in the eighteenth century, for
example by Paulus
Bayr in 1707.
They were not designed to be worn and
are
important only as collectors’ pieces.
To the right is a photograph taken in 1944 after the pair with the crazed lenses
seen above had been brought to London by a European wartime refugee.
The writings of de Valdes
In 1623 the Spanish writer B. Daza de Valdes produced a semi-fictional pamphlet with the somewhat lengthy title: Vso de los antojos para todo genero de vistas: en que se ensena a conocer los grados que a cada vno le faltan de su vista, y los que tienen qualesquier antojos. Y assi mismo a que tiempo se an de vsar, y como se pediran en ausencia, con otros auisos importantes, a la vtilidad y conseruacion de la vista. In this work he describes a user of spectacles in Seville, whom he names Marcel, complaining that his leather spectacles were of clumsy manufacture and kept falling off. As a result Marcel aspired to upgrade to a silver pair though, in fact, a well-made leather pair would have stayed on the nose better due to its greater flexibility and lighter weight. A spectacle maker informed Marcel of this; the set-piece conversation, if it can be believed, is interesting evidence of a dialogue between manufacturer and customer. A passing reference is made to looping the spectacles over the ears. This Marcel rejects on account of it looking less smart and being associated with older people. It seems he would rather break more pairs than benefit from the convenience of ear loops; perhaps the spectacle makers were happy to acquiesce in this if it meant a higher demand for new pairs?
1625-1631 - A pair of German spectacles in the so-called 'Augsburg Cabinet' presented by the City to King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden in 1632 (after its maker failed to find a buyer) have a frame of silver-gilt with concave lenticular lenses suitable for the correction of myopia (short-sight). A second pair with a blackened leather frame features polyhedral lenses which might serve as a therapeutic aid to relieve myopic strain. Sometimes known as 'multiplying lenses', these glasses may have been just an aristocratic amusement.
Samuel Pepys
The great diarist Samuel Pepys (1633-1703) purchased a pair of spectacles with
green lenses from the respected and 'great' spectacle maker John Turlington in
December 1666 in the hope that the tint might relieve the soreness of his eyes
caused, so he believed, by labouring under candlelight. They may have looked a
little like this pair with a leather frame. Turlington was Master of the
Spectacle Makers Company at the time. Dating these spectacles is problematic.
Whilst they are perhaps most likely to be from the second half of the century,
stylistically they could date from as early as 1600 which would make them the
oldest pair in the museum collection.
Pepys was a regular drinking partner of Sir Isaac Newton, who discovered the
colour spectrum and may possibly have discussed optics with him. Aids to vision
had many uses as one entry from his diary of May 1667 will show: I did entertain
myself with my perspective glass up and down the church, by which I had the
great pleasure of seeing and gazing a great many very fine women; and what with
that and sleeping, I passed away the time till sermon was done.
Twenty First Century Spectacles
Today's spectacles will be tomorrow's antiques
The vast majority of modern spectacle frames are made in Italy, France, Germany,
China, Japan, or the USA. There is effectively no British frame industry left
except for small-scale operations providing specialist frames for the prestige
market....a field in which we excel.
These drawings were produced specially for the BOA Museum by Jean-Baptiste
Bouvier, one of the top designers at the L'Amy spectacle company based at Morez
in France, responsible for their 'Jeep' and 'Lacoste' licensed ranges. Since
early 2003 he and his colleagues have moved predominantly to computer-aided
design (CAD) though his ideas always start with the traditional paper and
pencil.
The art of successful spectacle frame design is to cater for the various
different markets in radically different ways. Younger spectacle wearers may
appreciate a bold frame. The older user may prefer an understated, conservative
design. All age groups contain those who are keen to follow fashion closely and
those who couldn't care less, but factors such as lightness of weight,
durability and, indeed, economy of price can still be influential.
So how do today’s frame designers react to the past?
Do they wish to respond to the historical patterns discernible in the story of
frame development or take deliberate steps to counteract them?
Of great interest to the historians of fifty years’ hence will be the comments
given during interviews for a special millennium publication in 1999....
Filippo de Franceschi recognised the difficulty of devising something genuinely
new and the factors which, in any case, act as a disincentive to such an
approach: ‘It is of course easier to work on the re-elaboration of old ideas’.
He suggested that ‘restyling’ was not a negative approach if it sought to
‘improve, perfect and evolve’ and identified a trend towards designers designing
for niche markets rather than mass selling. Michele Ceribelli an interior
designer noted also for his sunglasses suggested that craftsmanship (an
important source of innovation) had all but been killed off.
Certainly there are small businesses that resist the trend, for example Savile
Row advertises the fact that it has been making handmade frames since 1932, but
firms like that cater for a small market, even if it is an international one.
The frame on the left has a distinctively old fashioned look about it, which is
the entire point. In consequence it can be marketed as an 'Original Classic'.
It seems that the mass populace can find it difficult for people to understand
innovative ideas, if they really are innovative. Apparently caring little for
that, Fiorenzo Delegà saw eyewear at the dawn of the twenty first century as,
‘essentially a product in constant evolution which is being updated at a dizzy
speed allowing no pauses for reflection’. Peter Warrer, the Sales Manager for
Danish company Lindberg Optic Design was calmer, recognising that consumers
still change their eyewear less often than their clothes and even conceding that
the consumer places more emphasis on function, the moderate and classical
aesthetic elements. ‘Swings and excesses’ were to be avoided or at least
moderated.
In one sense we have swung back to the past. Once again some customers are
choosing their own correction, bypassing both the optometrist and the dispensing
optician.
This is a typical pair of self-selection reading spectacles as available cheaply
from supermarkets at the turn of the twentieth and twenty first centuries. They
are so cheap that customers may buy on impulse rather than through need. The
decision to buy is thus comparable with that made when picking up sweets close
to the check-out till. Although the label warns explicitly that these reading
glasses are no substitute for undergoing proper eye tests such spectacles were
nevertheless controversial in the opinion of many optometrists.
The fashion houses behind the manufacture of modern designer spectacle frames
are hardly reticent in shouting out their name, as seen on the side of this
Dolce & Gabbana frame from 2003. Like most such fashion brands the frame was
made under licence by a specialist optical manufacturing company, in this case
Marcolin of Italy.
The modern practitioner should beware of seeing the design of spectacle frames
as one long tale of progress. Evidence can be gathered to demonstrate a number
of recurrent themes and designers can be shown to have steered an evolutionary
course that does not exclude the occasional ‘retro’ step. Such recourses to
history are perhaps more frequent than some designers will admit even if the
materials they are working with are new ones. One must learn to separate
recurring trends from genuine innovation, and where such innovation is present,
be careful of assigning individual credit. It should also be recognised that the
spectacle-wearing public has not always embraced the latest designs with
alacrity and that there have been significant differences between countries.
Spectacles remain essentially simple devices and numerically speaking, the most
successful have been those that provide a cheap and comfortable means of holding
corrective lenses in place.