A

HISTORY OF SPECTACLES

L Webster Fox, M. I)..Ophthalmic Surgeon to the Germantown Hospital,

Htiiladelplria.

From the Medical and Surgical Reporter, May 3, 1890.

[From the Medical and Surgical Reporter, May 3, 1890.]

A HISTORY OF SPECTACLES.

L. WEBSTER FOX, M. D.,

OPHTHALMIC SURGEON TO THE GERMANTOWN HOSPITAL, PHILADELPHIA.

Spectacles are crutches for the eyes, saidan old writer on optics; but the date atwhich the invention of spectacles wasbrought to the notice of the world is nowone of the things which have been “ lost inthe mists of antiquity.”

The late Wendell Phillips, in his lectureon the “Lost Arts,” said: “And evenspectacles are among the things which wereknown to the ancients;” but on the tomb-stone of Salvinus Armatus, a Florentine no-bleman, who died in 1317, is inscribed thathe was the inventor of spectacles. Whetherthe ancient Egyptians and Phoenicians pos-sessed the knowledge of the action of lensesis only a matter of conjecture. The art ofengraving upon glass was known 2423 yearsB. C., and it is impossible to recognize cer-tain delicate lines in specimens of engravedglass which date back many centuries beforeChrist, without the aid of a strong convexlens. It is therefore reasonable to supposethat the artist had an aid to his vision inengraving these delicate lines. At one timeglass-blowing was the chief industrial occu-

pation of the inhabitants of Alexandria.Rome excelled in the making of glass, andin many respects this art has never beenequaled. Pliny tells us that, for drinkingvessels, glass was preferred to gold and sil-ver. If the art of making glass had reachedsuch a degree of perfection, why shouldnot spectacles have been also made andused?

History also mentions that Nero (A. D.68) used to view the games in the theatrefrom the top of the Procenium, and in theamphitheatre, through a concave glass sus-pended in front of him, because he was ex-ceedingly near-sighted. Whether or not theancients had spectacles we do not know;but it is reasonable to suppose that they hadat least aids to assist their vision in the ex-quisite engraving found upon gems andjewels.

Our first positive knowledge of spectaclesis gathered from the writings of Roger Ba-con, who died in 1292. Bacon says: “Thisinstrument (a plano-convex glass or largesegment of a sphere) is useful to old men

and to those that have weak eyes; for theymay see the smallest letters sufficiently mag-nified.” Alexander de Spina, who died in1313, had a pair of spectacles made forhimself by an optician who had the secretof their invention. De Spina was so muchpleased with them that he made the inventionpublic. M. Spoon fixes the date of the in-ventionbetween 1280 and 13 11. In a manu-script written in 1299 by Pissazzo, the author

clear. He further explained why it is thatthe brain receives an erect impression, al-though the image of the object is invertedupon the retina. After the application ofconvex and concave glasses for visual defects,the next peculiar discovery was made bySir David Brewster, who upon testing hisvision with a Porterfield optometer (about1758) found that he could see vertical linesat a distance of ten inches, while horizontal

Fig. i.

Ancient Spectacles.

says: “I find myself so pressed by age thatI can neither read nor write without thoseglasses they call spectacles, lately invented,to the great advantage of poor old menwhen their sight grows weak.” Friar Jor-dan, who died in Pisa in 1311, says in oneof his sermons, which was published in 1305,“ that it is not twenty years since the art ofmaking spectacles was found out, and is in-deed one of the best and most necessary in-ventions in the world.”

Granting that spectacles were inventedFig. 2.

Franklin Spectacles.

about 1292, it was not known until the year1600 why certain individuals required con-vex and others concave glasses.

Kepler, who demonstrated in what man-ner the rays of light were refracted throughthe humors of the eye and formed a distinctpicture upon the retina, also showed howthe images of objects became confused andhow concave glasses rendered such images

lines were visible to him only at a distanceof seven inches.

Benjamin Franklin has been credited withdevising a double-focus spectacle—in whatyear history does not record. Franklinwas born in 1706, and being hypermetropic,it is reasonable to suppose that he devisedthis glass about 1750. These spectacleswere split glasses, the upper half to be usedfor distant vision, and the lower half forreading or near work. The chief objectionto wearing this kind of glasses is that theycut off the lower half of the visual field in

walking. (Fig. 2.)Sir David Brewster was

the first to discover the as-tigmatic eye ; but the cor-rection of this abnormalityof sight was left to Mr. Airy(1825), who found that hisleft eye had very defectivevision, so that he was una-ble to read with it, while

the appearance of a candle-flame looked atwith his left eye was not circular—as whenseen with his right eye, which was also defec-tive for distant vision—but was shaped likean ellipse, with its long diameter inclined atabout 350

. The concave glass which ren-dered vision distinct for the right eyepartly corrected the defect in the left.He concluded that the curvature of the

3

cornea was greater in one diameter than theother. He found, too, by drawing on papertwo lines crossing each other at right anglesthat at a certain distance from the crossingpoint one line was distinct while the otherwas indistinct. He also foundthat, by bringing the paper nearer,the invisible line became clearand the formerly clear line be-came indistinct. From these phe-nomena he concluded that therefraction of one plane of his eyewas different from that of theother, and, consequently spheri-cal lenses would not benefit him.His object was then to make aglass which should refract raysmore powerfully in one plane thanin another plane at right anglesto it. He therefore had a lensconstructed which was doubly concave, oneof the surfaces being spherically concave,and the other cylindrically concave, and ofsuch a curvature as to bring to the samepoint the vertical and horizontal lines. Anoptician by the name of Fuller, at Ipswich,

Fig. 4.

Jachan, 1839.

made this glass, which gave Mr. Airy usefulvision in his left eye.

An improvement on the Franklin glasswas made by Schnaitman, of Philadelphia,who, in 1836, was granted a patent on bifo-cals, which were the first ground bifocalsmade in this country. (Fig. 3.) The upperhalf was used for distant vision,the lower half for near work.

C. H. L. Jachan, of New York,in 1839, was granted a patent ofa glass for spectacles, “ by leavinga small, circular, clear space op-posite the pupil of the eyes, to besurrounded by a ground portion,extending over the remainder of the surfaceso adjusted as to leave a larger proportionthereof above the eye, and in the case ofconcave or convex glasses that the centre ofconvexity or concavity shall coincide withthe centre of said clear, circular space. Ialso claim,” he says, “ in combination there-

with the location of the bridge and thehinges and bows to adjust the clear space tothe pupil of the eye all in the manner andfor the purpose above described.” (Fig. 4.)

Hotchkiss and Norton, on April 17, 1849,Fig. 3.

Schnaitman, 1836.

were granted a patent for a bifocal which wasexactly like the bifocal glasses devised bySchnaitman in 1836, as show in Fig. 5,and which was no improvement over thespectacles made thirteen years before.

Samuel Gregg, of Boston, in November,1866, was granted a patent onbifocal spectacles based onthe following claims: “con-structing glasses of spectacleswhere two distinct lenses orsegments of lenses are con-tained in one glass adaptedfor seeing near and distant ob-jects in such a manner thatthe upper edge of the con-

vex lens adapted for seeing near objectsshall be concentric with the upper edge ofthe lens adapted for seeing distant objectsfor the purpose of enlarging the field ofvision.” (Fig. 6.)

Edmondson, in 1867, followed with aFig. 5.

Hotchkiss and Norton, 1849.

more complex bifocal spectacle. The fol-lowing is his description of it;

“Fig. 7a is a perspective view; Fig. 7bis a section on the line x x of Fig. 7a.

“ Each lens consists of two pieces, of dif-ferent magnifying powers, and set in differ-ent planes. The line of division between

4

the two is the horizontal mid-section ; theupper portion is of greater focal distance forviewing more distant objects. The plane ofthe upper portion is at right angles to thatof the bows, and at about the same angle tothe axis of the eyes when adjusted horizon-

Fig. 6.

Gregg, 1866.

tally. The plane of the lower halves is in-clined to the former so as to be about atright angles to the axis of the eyes whendeclined in reading, etc.

“In the drawings, A A are the bezels,which confine the lenses; B the bows, bywhich the spectacles are clasped to the head;and C the bridge by which they are sup-ported in position. The lenses in each case

Fig. 7a.

distances above and below. The lower half,E, is of a more convex character, so as tosuit the eye for reading, writing, needlework,etc., for which purpose a stronger power isgenerally required, as is familiarly instancedin the case of a person reading with specta-

cles and looking over them atpersons or other ordinary objectsat a greater distance than thebook. It is desired to maintainthe proper relative positions ofthe two portions to the axis ofthe eyes, and to secure this theupper half is in a plane at rightangles to the bows B, so that the

portion D meets the requirements of the eyewhen looking straight forward at the scene,and the portion E is at such an angle withthe portion D as will correspond to the ordi-nary declination of the axis of the eyes inreading, etc. This adjustment of focal lengthand plane to the varying conditions and re-quirements is a valuable and hitherto unde-veloped feature in spectacles.

Edmondson, 1867,

Fig. 7b.“1 have heretofore spoken of the inven-

tion in reference to the use of convex glasses,in which case the upper portion has the leastpower, but my improvement is also adaptedfor glasses for those troubled with myopia,in which case the upper half would be thestronger power, more concave than thelower.”

I have in my possession a pair of bifocalspectacles which came from Paris in 1870,in which a supplemental lens was cementedon the lower third of the distant glass, andis semicircular in form. This added lensis ground exceedingly thin at its outer andupper periphery, so that in looking throughit the juncture between distant and near

Edmondson, 1867.

consist of two pieces. The upper half, D,is of a longer focal distance than the other,that is, less convex ; it is designed for dis-tant objects such as ordinarily seen by aparty walking, objects which are assumed tobe about the height of the eye and short

5

glass cannot be noticed by the wearer. Howlong these spectacles had been in use inFrance I have not been able to ascertain;but they were not considered a novelty whenI purchased them. In fact, these spectaclesare of the same style as those which haverecently been so much written about and

Fig. 8.

French Spectacles. Before 1870.

advertised in theatre programmes, as some-thing entirely new and novel. (Fig. 8.)

Ira S. Doten, in May, 1877, devised andpatented spectacles having separate framesfrom the frames of the spectacles proper,and having such frames on pivots, so thatthe glasses may be turned to bring the re-quired foci into proper position for use.

“As shown in Fig. g, the spectacles arearranged for reading, the section D, havingthe strongest focus, being down. In thisposition the upper segment C can be used,if it is desired to look at anything abovethe wearer, at a distance off,without changing the posi-tions of the foci; but whenit is desired to use the spec-tacles for walking, the segmentC must have the lowest posi-tion, as the eye naturally looksdown in walking-; and to attainthis end all that is necessaryto be done is to revolve theframe E, bringing the section C to the low-est position, when the focus will be the onerequired for walking.

“By this arrangement all the advantagesderived from two pair of spectacles havingdifferent foci will be obtained, and the dis-advantages arising from the use of specta-cles having glasses with sections of differentfoci held stationary in the frame will beovercome, as by revolving the glasses theproper focus can be brought into positionwith no change in the place where worn.”

Louis Franklin, in this same year, claimsan improvement in spectacles, which con-sists in so constructing the two glasses thatthe upper one can be removed or foldedback out of the way, so as not to obstructthe vision, or it can be folded down overthe lower one, so as to form a double thick-

ness and thereby increase its powers forreading.

In all spectacles of the bifocal pattern,cylinder glasses were not added up to thisdate. When it was necessary to use astronger glass for reading, an “extra front”spectacle wag universally given, or else

the presbyopic correctionwas added to distant-visionglasses necessitating two pairsof spectacles. To overcomethis inconvenience I sug-gested to John L. Borsch,the optician, in October,1883, the practicability ofcutting out a segment of the

distant glass which had a cylinder glassadded, and inserting a sphero-cylinder,which was useful in reading. By such amechanical contrivance it is obvious thatbut one pair of glasses was needed for dis-tant and near work. These spectacles, fromthe manner in which they were made, hadtheir optical centres in the geometrical cen-tres, and in consequence had not the disad-vantage of a prismatic effect. (Fig. 10.) Oneserious objection was raised against thesebifocals, arid that was that, where it wasnecessary to give a combination of high

Fig. 9.

Doten, 1877.

power, the curved lines formed by thedouble refracting surfaces at the juncture ofthe lenses interfered with vision. In low

Fig. 11.Fig. 10.

Fox, 1883. Fox, 1883.

powers, however, this was not so noticeable.The “curved line objection ” was overcome

6

by Borsch, in making an “ improved bifo-cal ” in which the segmental lens was ce-mented upon the long-distance glass, grind-ing this supplemental lens so thin at itsupper and outer periphery as to make analmost invisible line at the juncture of thetwo glasses. (Fig. 11.)

The only originality to which I lay claimis the adding of the cylinder glass to thesphericals. Gregg devised the cutting outof the segmental lens, and the French opti-cians the cementing on of the suppleme?itallens.

Roberts, in 1884, follows with a revolvingspectacle practically the same as devised byMr, Doten.

In October, 1884, Dr. B. M. Hanna, ofPittsburgh, received a patent for an improved

my invention,” he says, “ to any particularmode of construction, as that will be bestdetermined by the circumstances of individ-ual taste, conditions of use, relative cost, orthe fancy of the maker. Likewise the formof the lenses may vary.” Dr. Hanna hasonly one claim to originality, and that is theinsertion of the reading glass in the perfora-tion made in the distance glass. (Fig. 12.)

George W. Wells, of Southbridge, Mass.,received a patent, June 2, 1885, and claimsas new a bifocal with a cemented supple-mental lens, consisting of a whole lens ofthe weaker power required for the upperportion of the completed lens and a halflens applied to the inner face of the wholelens to give the stronger power required inthe lower portion of the completed lens.

Fig. 12.

Hanna, 1884.

bifocal lens. Whether or not Dr. Hannacombined cylinder glasses with his sphericalglasses I have not ascertained. He, how-ever, claimed only the improvement “ to allordinary forms of lenses, whether doubleconvex, periscopic convex, double concave,periscopic concave, or other form.”

Fig. 13.

Morck, 1888-9.

“ In constructing,” he further says, “ sucheye-glasses, the short-focus lenses may becemented on the long-focus lenses, or theymay be formed in the original operation ofgrinding, or by subsequent grinding, or thelens may be bored out and the lenses insertedwith cement. I, therefore, do not confine

This bifocal lens is exactly the same modelas the one made for me by Mr. Borsch in1883, and was followed by Morck with a

similar one five years later. (Fig. 13.)August Morck, Jr., was granted a patent

in October, 1888, in “reference to certainimprovements in spectacles or eye-glasses,

and its object is to render more ef-fective such spectacles or eye-glasses asare employed for combined near andfar range purposes.” Morck was thefirst to claim by patent, “ in combina-tion with spheres, cylindrical glassesand prisms.” In describing the seg-mental lens which is cemented uponthe long-range glasses, he uses the fol-lowing language: “Is made to taperto a feather edge along the segmentalline, and therefore the lens has itsthickest part along the lower edge.This construction obliterates the sur-

face-line to the sight while giving a per-fectly defined area for near vision.” InApril, 1889, Mr. Morck received anotherpatent on a “spectacle lens,” in the con-struction of which he employs “ two lensesof different powers of such configurationsand relative sizes as to avoid the objection

7

of the eye resting at the same time on bothlenses and the consequent blurred or dizzyeffect upon the vision;” and he claims asnew “ the combination, with a far-visionlens, having its lower edge cut out centrallyin semicircular form, of a near-vision lensshaped to fit said central semicircular open-

The base glass is the sph. + j D., theoptical centre coinciding with the geomet-rical centre—understood in optics as thenormal centre—and is the glass used formedium vision. The segmental lens may beground in such a way as to preserve itsprismatic effect. In other words this lens

Fig. 14.

Fox, 1890. (Trifocal.)

ing in the far-vision lens and secured thereinby suitable adhesive substance substantiallyas set.”

To any one who has followed this articleit must be obvious that Morck’s first patenthad already been anticipated in the glassesin use in Paris in 1870, by me in 1883 andby Dr. Hanna in 1884. His second patentwas anticipated by Gregg in 1866 and byme in 1883.

Having now given a history of the devel-

has the following equation : —j.so D. sph.on one surface and—o.so D. sph. combinedwith a prism 3 0

, base up, which, whencemented upon the sph. j. D., equals sph.+ 1. D., optical centre coinciding withgeometrical centre ; being the glass used forlong range. The lower, segmental lensequals on one surface sph. 1.50 D. on theother surface sph. j. D., with prism 30 basedown; which when cemented to the sph. +

3. D. (base glass) equals sph. + 4.30. D.,Fig. 15.

Latest Improved Spectacles

opment of the “bifocal” lens from Frank-lin’s day to the present writing, I must de-scribe a “trifocal” which was made forme by Messrs. Borsch & Rommel, January15, 1890. The patient required sph. +l.D. , for distance; sph. +3. D., for (piano)music ; and sph. + 4.50. D.

, for near work.The occupation of the individual madenecessary this kind of glass, which has beenworn constantly up to the present with en-tire satisfaction. (Fig. 14.)

Where it is necessary, concave or oonvexlenses, with or without cylinders, may bemade in like manner.

reading glass, the optical centre coincidingwith the geometrical centre of near vision.If the base glass is of a higher or lowerrefractive power, the figures of the segmentallenses will vary correspondingly ; and it isof great importance that the optical centrescoincide with the geometrical centres; whichhas not been so in the old bifocals and inmany as made to-day.

This brief sketch—which makes no pre-tension to completeness—shows how trueit is, that there is nothing new under thesun.

1304 Walnut Street.