Sources of Confusion in Descartes's Illustrations,with Reference to the History of Contact Lenses

For up-to-date general accounts, including bibliographical information, see Grosvenor T. P. , Theory and practice of contact lenses (Chicago, 1963), 1–11; Mandell R. B. , Contact lens practice: Basic and advanced (Illinois, 1965), ch. 1.

See for example Fererro Nino , “Leonardo da Vinci: Of the eye”, American journal of ophthalmology, xxxv (1952) 507–21; Keele K. D. , “Leonardo da Vinci on vision”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, xlviii (1955) 384–90; Hofstetter H. Graham R. , “Leonardo and contact lenses”, American journal of optometry and archives of the American Academy of Optometry, xxx (1953) 41–4, and “Leonardo da Vinci”, Optica international, ii (1965) 66–70; Dudragne R. A. , “Contribution à l'historie du ‘contact optique’ et à ses applications”, Optica international, ii (1965) 32–9, 46–9. For da Vinci's work on corneal neutralisation, see particularly Codex D, f. 3^v in da Vinci Leonardo , Les manuscrits de Leonard de Vinci … M. C. Ravaisson Mollien (Paris, 1881–91).

See Enoch J. M. , “Descartes' contact lens”, American journal of optometry and archives of the American Academy of Optometry, xxxiii (1956) 77–85; Graham R. , “The evolution of corneal contact lenses”, ibid., xxxvi (1959) 55–7.

Philosophical transactions, xci (1801) 23–88.

Encyclopaedia metropolitana (London, 1830) ii, 398. Modern writers who refer to this passage invariably quote the publication date as 1845. French and German translations of Herschel's article had appeared before 1845: See the French edition, trans. Verhulst P. F. Quetelet A. (Paris, 1829) i. (1833) ii; the German edition, trans. Schmidt J. C. E. (Stuttgart and Tubingen, 1831).

There appears to be no evidence to show that Herschel described the principles of contact lenses as early as 1823; neither did Herschel introduce contact lenses in 1827.

There is no evidence to show that Herschel's account appeared in the Encyclopaedia Britannica in 1823. The sixth edition (1823) of the Britannica, art. ‘Light’, does not discuss the eye and vision. Furthermore, it is unsigned. Neither of the two subsequent editions (art. ‘Light’) is signed by Herschel.

There is no evidence to show that Herschel suggested, experimented, or constructed a contact lens as a protective device against the cornea from lid disease. Herschel wrote: “Should any very bad cases of irregular cornea be found … by applying in contact with the surface of the eye some transparent animal jelly contained in a spherical capsule of glass; … or whether an actual mould of the cornea might not be taken, and impressed on some transparent medium …”, Encyclopaedia metropolitana, ii, 398.

For an English translation of Fick's paper, see May C. H. , Archives of ophthalmology, xvii (1888), 215–226.

See also von Rohr M. , “Some observations as to the revival of Dr Fick's contact glasses”. Dioptric review, xxxii (1930) 232–6; van der Heydt R. Gradle H. , “Concerning contact glasses”, American journal of opthalmology, xiii (1930) 867–8; and Lebensohn J. E. (ed.), “Classics of ophthalmology: Contact lens by Adoph Fick, biographical note”, Survey of ophthalmology, vi (1961) 694–7.

See for example Pascal J. , “The origins and development of contact lenses”. Optical journal and review, lxxviii (1941) 57–61, Obrig T. E. Salvatori P. , Contact lenses, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia, 1957), and Graham R. , op. cit. (n. 3), who have cited Frederich E. Müller. There are several Müllers associated with the early development of contact lenses, particularly F. E. and August, for a recent account of which see Nissel G. , “The Müllers of Wiesbaden: Some unexpected evidence in the history of the corneal lens”, Optician, cl (1965) 591–4.

Notwithstanding the claims for Fick and Müller F. E. , respectively, E. Kalt independently used contact lenses at about the same time as Fick and Müller, according to the report by P. Panas, who cited Kalt's paper communicated to the Académie de Médecine (March 1888). See also Pansier , Histoire des lunettes (Paris, 1901) 129; Mandell R. B. , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 8; Haas E. “Les verres de contact”, Bulletin de la Société d'Ophtalmologie de Paris (1937), 1–160; Obrig T. , Contact lenses (Philadelphia, 1942) 129–30. Samland H. , “Zur Geschichte der Kontakt-linse”, Klinische Monatsblātter für Augenheilkunde, clxviii (1966) 734–736, has noted that in 1886 (i.e. one year prior to Fick and Müller) “berichtete Galczowski … kleine Gelatine-blattchen, die unmittelbar auf den Bulbus gebracht wurden. …”.

Descartes Discours … plus la dioptrique … (Leyden, 1637), 78–9.

It was not until the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries that myopia, presbyopia and hypermetropia were recognised as distinctly separate refractive errors: See for example, Wells W. C. , “Experiments and observations on vision”, Philosophical transactions, ci (1811) 380; Ware J. , “Observations relative to the near and distant sight of different persons”, Philosophical transactions, ciii (1813) 43.

Cited in Duke-Elder W. S. , Text book of ophthalmology (London, 1950), iv, 4572.

For further details, see Emsley H. H. Swaine W. , Ophthalmic lenses, 5th ed. (London 1946), 276 et seq. For the combination of spectacle lens (objective) and contact lens (eyepiece) employed as a telescope, i.e. a ‘contact-spectacle’ telescope, in the correction of high myopia and subnormal vision aid, see Mandell R. B. , op. cit. (n.1), 365–79; Bier N. , Correction of subnormal vision (London, 1960); Sloane L. Jablonski M. , “Reading aids for the partially blind”, A.M.A. archives of ophthalmology, lxii (1959) 145–64.

Oeuvres de Descartes, ed. Cousin Victor , (Paris, 1824) v, 81.

See for example, the following editions: (Amstelodami, 1646) 142–44; (Amstelodami, 1650), illustration, 134, 136; (Amstelodami, 1664) 89–91; (Paris, 1668) 176–177; ed. Aumery (Paris, 1824) ii, 83–6, plate 5, figs. 33–4; (Paris, 1902) vi, 156.

Professor of Mathematics at Leiden; see Roth L. , ed., Correspondence of Descartes and Constantyn Huygens, 1635–1647 (Oxford, 1926) 213.

Roth , ibid., 24–25 (footnote), and 213 (correspondence).

Descartes Disours, 80: “… de plus en plus grande selon que ce truyau sera plus long.

Scott J. F. , Scientific work of René Descartes (London, 1952) 32, appears, incidentally, to have completely missed the significance of the Descartes water-filled tube, and the whole concept of corneal neutralisation.

This is discussed in my “Huygens' critique of Descartes' glass cone hypothesis” (forthcoming).