Of the manner in which the Eye conforms itself in order to see distinctly at different Distances.
It has been much disputed in what manner the eye conforms itself to see distinctly at different distances; for it is evident, that, without some change, the rays which flow from objects at different distances, could not be collected into a focus at the same point, and, consequently, though the eye might see distinctly at one distance, it could not at another.
This subject has given rise to a variety of opinions, but few of them are satisfactory; and though several of them might explain the phenomena of vision, at different distances, yet it is by no means proved that those supposed changes do take place in the eye. I shall content myself with just mentioning the principal opinions on this subject, without engaging in a controversy, which has for a long time employed the ingenuity of philosophers to little purpose.
Some are of opinion, that the whole globe of the eye changes its figure; becoming more oblong when objects are near, and more flat when they are removed to a greater distance; and this change in the figure of the eye is differently explained by different authors; some maintain that it is rendered oblong by the joint contraction of the two oblique muscles: others think that the four straight muscles acting together, compress the sides of the globe, and by this compression, reduce it to an oblong figure, when objects are near; and that, by its natural elasticity, it recovers its former figure when these muscles cease to act. Others again think that when these four straight muscles act together, they render the eye flat by pulling it inwards, and pressing the bottom of it against the fat; and that it is reduced to its former figure, either by the joint contraction of the two oblique muscles, or by the inherent elasticity of its parts, which exerts itself when the muscles cease to act.
That, if such a change should take place in the eye, it would produce distinct vision, will be readily granted; but that such a one does not take place, at least in any of these ways, is, in my opinion, very certain. Dr. Porterfield thinks that the crystalline lens has a motion by means of the ligamentum ciliare, by which the distance between it and the retina is increased or diminished, according to the different distances of objects. The ligamentum ciliare, he says, is an organ, the structure and disposition of which excellently qualify it for changing the situation of the crystalline, and removing it to a greater distance from the retina, when objects are too near for us; for that, when it contracts, it will not only draw the crystalline forwards, but will also compress the vitreous humour, lying behind it, so that it must press upon the crystalline, and push it from the retina. Although this hypothesis will, in a great measure, account for distinct vision at different distances, yet it could only be of use where the rays enter the eye with a certain degree of divergency, while, however we are sure, that in looking at very distant objects which are at different distances from us, the eye undergoes a change. But a sufficient objection to Dr. Porterfield's hypothesis is, that it is by no means proved that the crystalline lens can be moved in the manner he supposes, or that the ligamentum ciliare is possessed of muscular fibres; on the contrary some eminent anatomists deny that they are.
We shall now take a view of the opinion of M. de la Hire, who considered this subject, as well as almost every other relating to vision, with the closest attention; he maintains, that, in order to view objects distinctly at different distances, there is no alteration but in the size of the pupil, which is well known to contract and dilate itself according to the quantity of light flowing from the object we look at, being most contracted in the strongest light, and most dilated when the light is weakest; and consequently will contract when an object is held near the eye, and dilate as it is removed, because in the first case the quantity of light entering the eye is much greater than in the last. That this contraction of the pupil will have the effect of rendering vision distinct, especially when objects are within the furthest limits of distinct vision, will plainly appear, if we consider the cause of indistinct vision. Dr. Jurin has shown, that objects may be seen with sufficient distinctness, though the pencils of rays issuing from the points of them do not unite precisely in another point on the retina, but instead thereof, if they form a circle which does not exceed a certain magnitude, distinct vision will be produced; the circle formed by these rays on the retina he calls the circle of dissipation. The pupil will, by contracting, not only diminish the circles of dissipation, and thereby help to produce distinct vision, but will also prevent so great a quantity of light from falling near the circumferences of those circles; and Dr. Jurin has shown, that, if the light on the outer side of the circles of dissipation is diminished, the remainder will scarce affect the sense. In both these ways, the contraction of the pupil has a tendency to diminish the circles of dissipation, and, consequently, to produce distinct vision. This is likewise confirmed by experiment, for when an object is placed so near, that the pupil cannot be so much contracted as is necessary for distinct vision, the same end may be obtained by means of an artificial pupil: for, if a small hole is made in a card, a very near object may be viewed through it with the greatest ease and distinctness. Also, if a person have his back turned towards a window, and hold a book so near his eyes as not to be able to read, if he turn his face to the light, he will find, that he will be able to read it very distinctly; which is owing to the contraction of the pupil by means of the light.
M. Le Roi, a member of the Royal Academy of Montpelier, has attempted to defend the opinion of M. de la Hire, and, indeed, it seems, of all others, the best supported by facts; but perhaps it may not account so well for vision at great distances. It is likewise rendered more probable by viewing the pictures of external objects, formed in a dark chamber, by rays coming through a hole in the window shutter; those pictures will be rendered distinct, by dilating, or contracting the aperture, without the assistance of a lens, accordingly as the object is more or less distant; those who have had the crystalline lens depressed, or extracted, by means of one glass can see objects pretty distinctly at different distances. These, and several other arguments that might be brought, tend to prove that the eye accommodates itself to view objects distinctly at different distances, chiefly by means of the motion of the pupil; and though this does not explain the phenomenon so satisfactorily as we could wish, yet it is certain, that it has a share in it; we are however certain, that, in whatever manner it may be produced, the eye has a power of accommodating itself to view objects distinctly enough at several different distances.
Concerning the Seat of Vision.
No subject has been more canvassed than that concerning what is improperly called the seat of vision. In early times, the crystalline lens was thought to be best qualified for this office; but this substance, though situated in the middle of the eye, which Baptista Porta thought to be the proper centre of observation, had universally given place to the better founded pretensions of the retina: and, from the time of Kepler, few ventured to dispute its claim to that office, till M. Mariotte was led, from some curious circumstances, to think that vision was not performed by the retina, but by the choroid coat. Having often observed in the dissections of men, as well as of brutes, that the optic nerve is not inserted exactly opposite to the pupil, that is, in the place where the picture of the objects upon which we look directly, is made: and that in man it is somewhat higher, and on the side towards the nose, he had the curiosity to examine the reason of this structure, by throwing the image of an object on this part of the eye. In order to do this, he fastened on a dark wall, about the height of his eyes, a small round paper, to serve for a fixed point of sight; and he fastened such another paper on the right hand, at the distance of about two feet, but rather lower than the former, so that light issuing from it, might strike the optic nerve of his right eye, while the left was kept shut. He then placed himself over against the former paper, and drew back by degrees, keeping his right eye fixed, and very steady upon it, and when he had retired about ten feet, he found that the second paper entirely disappeared. This, he says, could not be imputed to the oblique position of the second paper, with respect to his eye, because he could see more remote objects on the same side. This experiment he repeated by varying the distances of the paper and his eye. He also made it with his left eye, while the right eye was kept shut, the second paper being fastened on the left side of the point of sight; so that by the situation of the parts of the eye, it could not be doubted that this defect of vision is in the place where the optic nerve enters, where only the choroides isdeficient.
From this he concludes, that the defect of vision is owing to the want of the choroid coat, and, consequently, that this coat is the proper organ of vision. A variety of other arguments in favour of the choroides occurred to him, particularly he observed that the retina is transparent, which he thought could only enable it to transmit the rays further, and he could not persuade himself that any substance could be considered as being the termination of the pencils, and the proper seat of vision, at which the rays are not stopped in their progress.
Mr. Pequet, in answer to Mariotte's observation, says, that the retina is very imperfectly transparent, resembling oiled paper, or horn: and, besides, that its whiteness demonstrates that it is sufficiently opaque for stopping the rays of light as much as is necessary for vision: whereas, if vision be performed by means of those rays which are transmitted through such a substance as the retina, it must be very indistinct.
Notwithstanding the plausibility of this opinion of M. Mariotte, and the number of celebrated men who joined him in it, I must confess, that none of their arguments, though very ingenious, have been able to make me a convert to that opinion.
If we argue from the analogy of the other senses, in all of which the nerves form the proper seat of sensation, we shall be induced to give judgment in favour of the retina. And this argument from analogy is much strengthened, by considering that the retina is a large nervous apparatus, immediately exposed to the impressions of light; whereas the choroides receives but a slender supply of nerves, and seems no more fitted for the organ of vision than any other part of the body. But facts are not wanting which make still more in favour of the retina. It appears from observations made upon the sea calf and porcupine, that these animals have their optic nerves inserted in the axis of the eye, directly opposite the pupil, which renders it very improbable that the defect in sight, where the optic nerves enter, can be owing to the want of the choroides in that place; for were this true, then in those creatures which have the optic nerves inserted in the axis of the eye, and which by consequence do directly receive on the extremity of the nerve the pictures of objects, all objects would become invisible to which their eyes are turned, because the choroides is wanting in that place where the image falls; but this is contrary to experience.
M. Le Cat, though he strenuously supports Mariotte's opinion, takes notice of a circumstance, which, if he had properly considered it, might have led him to a contrary conclusion: from a beautiful experiment he obtains data, which enable him with considerable accuracy to determine the size of the insensible spot in his eye, which he finds to be about 1/30 or 1/40 of an inch in diameter, and consequently only about 1/5 or 1/6 of the diameter of the optic nerve, that nerve being about 1/6 of an inch in diameter. I find that in my eye likewise, the diameter of the insensible spot is about 1/40 of an inch, or something less. Whence it is evident that vision exists where the choroid coat is not present, and consequently that the choroid coat is not the organ of vision.
It is probably owing to the hardness and callosity of the retina where the nerve enters, that we have this defect of sight, as it has not yet acquired that softness and delicacy which is necessary for receiving such slight impressions as those of the rays of light, and this conjecture is rendered still more probable by an observation of M. Pequet, who tells us, that a bright and luminous object, such as a candle, does not absolutely disappear, but one may see its light, though faint. This not only shows that the defect of sight is not owing to a want of the choroides, but also that the retina is not altogether insensible where the nerve enters. These circumstances, in my opinion, render it certain, that the retina, and not the choroid coat, is the organ of vision.
Of our seeing Objects erect by inverted Images.
Another question concerning vision, which has very much perplexed philosophers, is this; how comes it that we see objects erect, when it is well known that their images or pictures on the retina are inverted? The sagacious Kepler, who first made this discovery, was the first that endeavoured to explain the cause of it.
The reason he gives for our seeing objects erect, is this, that as the rays from different points of an object cross each other before they fall on the retina, we conclude that the impulse we feel upon the lower part of the retina comes from above; and that the impulse we feel from the higher part, comes from below. Des Cartes afterwards gave the same solution of this phenomenon, and illustrated it by the judgment we form of the position of objects which we feel with our arms crossed, or with two sticks that cross each other. But this solution is by no means satisfactory: first, because it supposes our seeing objects erect to be a deduction from reason, drawn from certain premises, whereas it seems to be an immediate perception; and secondly, because all the premises from which this conclusion is supposed to be drawn, are absolutely unknown to far the greater part of mankind, and yet they all see objects erect.
Bishop Berkeley, who justly rejects this solution, gives another, founded on his own principles, in which he is followed by Dr. Smith. This ingenious writer thinks that the ideas of sight are altogether unlike those of touch; and since the notions we have of an object by these different senses, have no similitude, we can learn only by experience how one sense will be affected, by what, in a certain manner, affects the other. Thus, finding from experience, that an object in an erect position, affects the eye in one manner, and that the same object in an inverted position, affects it in another, we learn to judge, by the manner in which the eye is affected, whether the object is erect or inverted. But it is evident that Bishop Berkeley proceeds upon a capital mistake, in supposing that there is no resemblance between the extension, figure, and position, which we see, and that which we perceive by touch. It may be further observed, that Bishop Berkeley's system, with regard to material things, must have made him see this question, in a very different light from that in which it appears to those who do not adopt his system.
In order to give a satisfactory answer to this question, we must first examine some of the laws of nature, which take place in vision; for by these the phenomena of vision must be regulated.
It is now, I believe, pretty well established, as a law of nature, that we see every point of an object in the direction of a right line, which passes from the picture of that point on the retina, through the centre of the eye. This beautiful law is proved by a very copious induction of facts; the facts upon which it is founded are taken from some curious experiments of Scheiner, in his Fundamenta Optices. They are confirmed by Dr. Porterfield, and well illustrated by Dr. Reid. The seeing objects erect by inverted images is a necessary consequence of this law of nature: for from thence it is evident that the point of the object whose picture is lowest on the retina, must be seen in the highest direction from the eye; and that the picture which is on the right side of the retina, must be seen on the left.
Of seeing Objects single with two Eyes.
That we should have two pictures of an object, and yet see it single, has long been looked upon as a curious circumstance by philosophers: and of consequence, many attempts have been made to account for it, few of which, however, are satisfactory.
As it would take up too much time to give a view of all the opinions on this subject, I shall pass over the opinions of Galen, Gassendus, Baptista Porta, Rohault, and others, which do not deserve a serious refutation; and shall content myself with making a few observations on the hypothesis of Bishop Berkeley.
But it seems the most proper way of proceeding, first of all to consider the phenomena of single and double vision, in order, if possible, to discover some general principle to which they lead, and of which they are necessary consequences; and, for the sake of perspicuity, we shall premise the following definition.
When a small object is seen single with both eyes, those points on the two retinas on which the pictures of the object fall, may be called corresponding points: and when the object is seen double, we shall call such points, non-corresponding points.
Now we find that in sound and perfect eyes, when the axes of both are directed to one point, an object placed in that point is seen single; and in this case, the two pictures which show the object single, are painted on the centres of the retinas. Hence, the centres of the two retinas correspond.
Other objects at the same distance from the eyes, as that to which their axes are directed, do also appear single: and in this case, it is evident to those who understand the principles of optics, that the pictures of an object to which the eyes are not directed, but which is at the same distance as that to which they are directed, fall both on the same side of the centre, that is, both to the right, or both to the left, and both at the same distance from the centre. Hence it is plain, that points in the retina, which are similarly situated with respect to the centres, are corresponding points.
An object which is much nearer, or much more distant from the eyes, than that to which their axes are directed, appears double. In this case, it will easily appear, that the pictures of the object which is seen double, do not fall upon points which are similarly situated. From these facts, we are led to the following conclusion, viz. that the points of the two retinas, which are similarly situated with respect to the centres, correspond with each other, and that the points which are dissimilarly situated, do not correspond. The truth of this general conclusion is founded upon a a very full induction, which is all the evidence we can have for a fact of this nature.
The next thing that seems to merit our attention, is, to inquire, whether this correspondence between certain points of the two retinas which is necessary to single vision, is the effect of custom, or an original property of the human eyes.
We have a strong argument in favour of its being an original property, from the habit we get of directing our eyes accurately to an object; we get this habit by finding it necessary for perfect and distinct vision; because thereby, the two images of the object falling upon corresponding points, the eyes assist each other in vision, and the object is seen better by both eyes together, than by one: but when the eyes are not accurately directed, the two images of the object fall upon points which do not correspond, whereby the sight of the one eye disturbs that of the other. Hence it is not unreasonable to conclude, that this correspondence between certain points of the retina is prior to the habits we acquire in vision: and, consequently, natural and original.
We have all acquired the habit of directing our eyes in one particular manner, which causes single vision; now if the Author of Nature had ordained that we should see objects single, only when our eyes are thus directed, there is an obvious reason why all mankind should agree in the habit of directing them in this manner; but, if single vision were the effect of custom, any other habit of directing the eyes would have answered the purpose; we therefore, on this supposition, can give no reason why this particular habit should be so universal.
Bishop Berkeley maintains a contrary opinion, and thinks that our seeing objects single with both eyes, as well as our seeing them erect, by inverted images, depends upon custom. In this he is followed by Dr. Smith, who observes, that the question, why we see objects single with both eyes, is of the same nature with this, why we hear sounds single with both ears; and that the same answer will serve for both; whence he concludes, that as the second of these phenomena is the effect of custom, so also is the first. But I think, that the questions are not so much of the same sort, as that the same answer will serve for both; and, moreover, that our hearing single with both ears is not the effect of custom. No person will doubt that things which are produced by custom, may be undone by disuse, or by a contrary custom. On the other hand, it is a strong argument, that an effect is not owing to custom, but to the constitution of nature, when a contrary custom, long continued, is found neither to change nor weaken it. Now it appears, that from the time we are able to observe the phenomena of single and double vision, custom makes no change in them, every thing which at first appeared double, appearing so still in the same circumstances. Dr. Smith has adduced some facts in favour of his opinion, which, though curious, seem by no means decisive. But in the famous case of the young man couched by Mr. Cheselden, after having had cataracts in both his eyes till his thirteenth year, it appears that he saw objects single from the time he began to see with both eyes. And the three young gentlemen mentioned by Dr. Reid, who had squinted, as far as he could learn, from infancy, as soon as they learned to direct both eyes to an object, saw it single.
In these cases it is evident that the centres of the retina corresponded originally, for Mr. Cheselden's young man had never seen at all before he was couched, and the other three had never been accustomed to direct the axes of both eyes to the same point. These facts render it probable, that this correspondence is not the effect of custom, but of fixed and immutable laws of nature.
With regard to the cause of this correspondence, many theories have been proposed, but as none of them can be looked on in any other light than as probable conjectures, I think it would be to little purpose to notice them. That of the illustrious Newton is the most ingenious of any, and though it has more the appearance of truth than any other, that great man has proposed it under the modest form of a query.
Having given a short account of the principal phenomena of vision, I proceed next to treat of some of the diseases to which this sense is subject, I shall first take notice of the deformity called squinting.
Of Squinting.
Though this is a subject which well deserves our particular attention, yet having spoken of such a variety of subjects in the preceding part of this lecture, I have not time for many observations on this. I shall just mention the principal opinions, concerning the cause of this deformity, and point out that which seems to me most probable. This subject is certainly very worthy the attention of the physician, as it is a case concerning which he may often be consulted, and which it may be sometimes in his power to cure.
A person is said to squint, when the axes of both his eyes are not directed to the same object.
This defect consists in the wrong direction of one of the eyes only. I have never met with an instance in which both eyes had a wrong direction, neither have I seen one accurately described by any author.
The generality of writers on this subject have supposed this defect to proceed from a disease of, or want of proper correspondence in, the muscles of the eyes, which not acting in proper concert with one another, as in persons free from this blemish, are not able to point both eyes to the same object. But this, I think, is very seldom the cause, for when the other eye is shut, the distorted eye can be moved by the action of its muscles, in all possible directions, as freely as that of any other person, which shows that it is not owing to a defect in the muscles, neither is it owing to a want of correspondence in the muscles of both eyes; for when both eyes are open, and the undistorted eye is moved in any direction whatever, the other always accompanies it, and is turned the same way at the same instant of time.
I shall next take notice of the hypothesis of M. de la Hire, who supposes, that in the generality of mankind, that part of the retina which is seated in and about the axis of the eye, is of a more delicate sense and perception than what the rest of the coat is endowed with; and therefore we direct both axes to the same object, chiefly in order to receive the picture on that part of the retina which can best perceive it; but in persons who squint, he conceives the most sensible part of the retina of one eye, not to be placed in the axis, but at some distance from it: and that, therefore, this more sensible part of the retina is turned towards the object, to which the other eye is directed, and thus causes squinting. This ingenious hypothesis has been followed by Dr. Boerhaave, and many other eminent physicians. If it be true, then if the sound eye be shut, and the distorted eye alone be used to look at an object, it must still be as much distorted as before, for the same reason: but the contrary is true in fact; for if you desire such a person to close his other eye and look at you with that which is usually distorted, he will immediately turn the axis of it directly towards you. If you bid him open the undistorted eye, and look at you with both eyes, you will find the axis of this last pointed at you and the other turned away, and drawn close to the nose, or perhaps to the upper eye lid. From these facts, and some others mentioned by Dr. Jurin, I think we may conclude that this defect is seldom, if ever, occasioned by such a preternatural make of the eye, as M. de la Hire supposed.
From the most accurate observations it will appear, that by far the most common cause of squinting, is a defect in the distorted eye. Dr. Reid examined above twenty people that squinted, and found in all of them a defect in the sight of one eye; M. Buffon likewise, from a great number of observations, has found that the true and original cause of this blemish, is an inequality in the goodness, or in the limits of distinct vision, in the two eyes. Dr. Porterfield says this is generally the case with people who squint; and I have found it so in all that I have had an opportunity of examining.
With regard to the nature of this defect, the distorted eye is sometimes more convex, and sometimes more flat, than the sound one; sometimes it does not depend upon the convexity, but upon a weakness, or some other affection, of the retina, of the nature of which we are ignorant.
It will be easy to conceive how this inequality of goodness in the two eyes, when in a certain degree, must necessarily occasion squinting, and that this blemish is not a bad habit, but a necessary one, which the person is obliged to learn, in order to see with advantage. When the eyes are equally good, an object will appear more distinct and clear when viewed with both eyes than with only one; but the difference is very little. The ingenious Dr. Jurin, who has made some beautiful experiments to ascertain this point, has shown, that when the eyes are equal in goodness, we see more distinctly with both than with one, by about one thirteenth part only. But M. Buffon has found that when the eyes are unequal, the case will be quite different. A small degree of inequality will make the object, when seen with the better eye alone, appear equally bright or clear, as when seen with both eyes; a little greater inequality will make the object appear less distinct when seen with both eyes, than when it is seen with the stronger eye alone; and a still greater inequality will render the object, when seen with both eyes, so confused, that in order to see it distinctly, one will be obliged to turn aside the weak eye, and put it into a situation where it cannot disturb the sight of the other. The truth of this may be easily proved by experiment. Let a person take a convex lens, and hold it about half an inch before one of his eyes; he will, by these means, render them very unequal. and if he attempt to read with both eyes, he will perceive a confusion in the letters, caused by this inequality; which confusion will disappear as soon as he shuts the eye which is covered with the lens, and looks only with the other.
Squinting is a necessary consequence of this inequality in the goodness of the two eyes; for a person whose eyes are to a certain degree unequal, finds that, when he looks at an object, he sees it very indistinctly; every conformation, or change of direction of his eyes which lessens the evil, will be agreeable; and he will acquire a habit of turning his eye towards the nose, not for the sake of seeing better with it, but in order to avoid, as much as possible, seeing at all with the distorted eye; for which purpose it will be drawn either under the upper eye lid, so that the pupil may be entirely or partially covered; or directly towards the nose, in which case the image of the object will fall at a distance from the axis of the eye: and it is a fact well known to philosophers, that we never naturally attend to an image which is at a distance from the axis; so that in this situation it will give little disturbance to the sight of the other.