Popular Lectures on Zoonomia Part 10

From the just mentioned properties of light, and the description we have given of the eye, it will not be difficult to explain the theory of vision, so far as it depends upon optical principles. For the eye may, with great propriety, be compared to a camera obscura; the rays which flow from external objects, and enter the eye, painting an inverted picture of those objects on the retina: if you carefully dissect from the bottom of an eye, newly taken out of the head of an animal, a small portion of the tunica sclerotica and choroides, and place this eye in a hole made in the window shutter of a dark chamber, so that the bottom of the eye may be towards you; the pictures or images of external objects will be painted on the retina in lively colours, but inverted.

In order to see how the several parts of the eye contribute to produce this effect, let us follow the rays proceeding from a luminous point, and see what will happen to them from the beforementioned properties of light.

Since the rays of light flow from every visible point of a body in every direction, some of them, issuing from this point, will fall upon the cornea, and, entering a medium of greater density, will be refracted towards the perpendicular, and as they fall upon a convex spherical surface, nearly in a parallel state, the pupil being so extremely small, it is evident, from the principles of optics, that they will be made to converge: those which fall very obliquely will either be reflected, or falling upon the uvea, or pigmentum nigrum, which covers the ciliary ligaments, will be suffocated, and prevented from entering the internal parts of the eye: those which fall more directly, as was before said, become converging, in which state they fall upon the anterior surface of the crystalline humour, which, having a greater refracting power than the aqueous humour, and its surface being convex, will cause them to converge still more, in which state they will fall upon the posterior surface of the crystalline, or anterior surface of the vitreous humour; which having a less refractive power than the crystalline, they will be refracted from the perpendicular; but, as they fall upon a concave surface, it is evident, from the principles of optics, that they will be made to converge still more: in which state they will go on to the retina, and if the eye is well formed, the refraction of these several humours will be just sufficient to bring them to a point or focus on the retina.

The same thing will happen to rays flowing from every other visible point of the object: the rays which flow from every point will be collected into a corresponding point on the retina, and, consequently, will paint the image of that object inverted; the rays coming from the superior part of any object, being collected on the inferior part of the retina, and vice versa, as is manifest from the principles of optics.

If the rays are accurately, or very nearly, collected into a focus on the retina, distinct vision will be produced; but if they be made to converge to a point before or beyond the retina, the object will be seen indistinctly; this is proved by holding a convex or concave gla.s.s before the eye of a good sighted person: in the former case, the rays will be made to converge to a point before they arrive at the retina, and in the latter, to a point beyond it. In these cases, it is plain that the rays which flow from a point in the object, will not form a point, but a circular spot, upon the retina, and these various circles intermixing with other, will render the image very indistinct. This is well ill.u.s.trated by the camera obscura, where if you hold the paper nearer or more remote than the focal distance of the lens, the picture will be indistinct.

So far then, in the theory of vision, are we led by the principles of optics, and we can with certainty, by their a.s.sistance, affirm, that if the eye is sound, and the image of an object distinctly painted upon the retina, it will be seen distinctly, erect, and of its proper colours: so far we can proceed on safe and sure grounds, but if we venture further, we shall find ourselves bewildered in the regions of hypothesis and fancy. The machinery by which nature connects the material and immaterial world is hidden from our view; in most cases we must be satisfied with knowing that there are such connexions, and that these connexions invariably follow each other, without our being able to discover the chain that goes between them. It is to such connexions that we give the name of laws of nature; and when we say that one thing produces another by a law of nature, this signifies no more, than that one thing, which is called the cause, is constantly and invariably followed by another, which we call the effect, and that we know not how they are connected. But there seems a natural propensity in the mind of man, to endeavour to account for every phenomenon that falls under his view, which has given rise to a number of absurd and romantic conjectures in almost every branch of science. From this source has risen the vibration of the fibres of the optic nerve, or the undulation of a subtile ether, or animal spirits, by which attempts have been made to explain the theory of vision; but all of them are absurd and hypothetical.

Kepler was the first who had any distinct notion of the formation of the pictures of objects on the bottom of the eye; this discovery he published about the year 1600. Joannes Baptista Porta had indeed got some rude notion of it prior to the time of Kepler, but as he knew nothing of the refraction made by the humours of the eye, his doctrine was lame and defective, for he imagines that the images are painted on the surface of the crystalline humour.

The disputes concerning the theory of vision had very much divided the ancient philosophers; some of them imagining that vision was caused by the reception of rays into the eye; while a great many others thought it more agreeable to nature, that certain emanations, which they called visual rays, should flow from the eye to the object.

We shall now inquire more particularly how each part of the eye is peculiarly fitted to produce distinct vision. Though the eye is composed of different humours, yet one might have been sufficient to collect the rays into a focus, and form the picture of an object upon the retina. By the experiments of the accurate Dr. Robertson, it appears that there is less difference in the density, as well as in the refracting power of the humours, than has been generally thought: by weighing them in a hydrostatic balance, he found that the specific gravities of the aqueous and vitreous humours were very nearly equal, each being nearly equal to that of water: and that the specific gravity of the crystalline did not exceed the specific gravity of the other humours in a greater proportion than that of about 11 to 10.

Hence it would seem to follow, that the crystalline is not of such great use in bringing the rays together, and thereby forming the pictures of objects on the retina, as has been commonly thought by optical writers; for though in shape it resembles a double convex lens, and is, on that account, fitted to make the rays converge; yet, be cause it is situated between two humours nearly of the same refractive power with itself, it will alter the direction of the light but a little. From this, the reason is evident why the sight continues after the operation for the cataract, in which the crystalline is depressed, or extracted, and why a gla.s.s of small convexity is sufficient to supply the little refraction wanting, occasioned by the loss of this humour. But without doubt, several important purposes are effected by this construction of the eye; which could not have been attained if it had been composed of one humour only. Some of those purposes seem sufficiently evident to us; for instance, by placing the aqueous humor before the crystalline, and partly before the pupil, and making the cornea convex, a greater quant.i.ty of light is made to enter the eye than could otherwise have done without enlarging the size of the pupil; the light will also enter in a less diverging state than it could have done if the pupil had been enlarged, and consequently be more accurately collected to a focus on the retina; for a perfect eye can only collect such rays to a focus on that membrane, as pa.s.s through the pupil nearly in a state of parallelism.

Another, and perhaps a princ.i.p.al advantage derived from the different humours in the eye, is, probably, to prevent that confusion arising from colour, which is the consequence of the different degrees of refrangibility of the rays of light. From the experiments of Mr.

Dollond, it appears, though contrary to the opinion of Newton, and most other optical writers, that different kinds of matter differ extremely with respect to the divergency of colour produced by equal refractions; so that a lens may be contrived, composed of media of different dispersing powers, which will form the image of any object free of colour; this discovery Mr. Dollond has applied to the improvement of telescopes, with great success. It is by no means improbable, that nature has, for the same purpose, placed the crystalline lens betwen two media of different densities, and, probably, different dispersing powers, so that an achromatic image, free from the prismatic colours, will be formed on the retina. Indeed we find a conjecture of this kind, so long since as Dr. David Gregory's time, he says, in speaking of the imperfection of telescopes, "Quod si ob difficultates physicas, in speculis idoneis torno elaborandis, et poliendis, etiamnum lentibus uti oporteat, forta.s.sis media diversae densitatis ad lentem objectivam componendam adhibere utile foret, ut a natura factum observamus in oculo, ubi crystallinus humor (fere ejusdem c.u.m vitro virtutis ad radios lucis refringendos) aqueo et vitreo (aquae quoad refractionem hand absimilibus) conjungitur, ad imaginem quam distincte fieri poterit, a natura nihil frustra moliente, in oculi fundo depingendam."

In describing the eye, I observed, that the crystalline humour was not every where of the same consistence, being much more hard and dense towards its centre, than externally: in the human eye, it is soft on the edges, and gradually increases in density as it approaches the centre: the reason of this construction is evident, at least we know of one use which it will serve; for, from the principles of optics, it is plain that the rays which fall at a distance from the axis of the crystalline, by reason of their greater obliquity, if the humour were of the same density in all its parts, would be more refracted than those which fall near its axis, so that they would meet at different distances behind the crystalline humour; those which pa.s.s towards its extremity, nearer, and those near its axis, at a greater distance, and could not be united at the same point on the retina, which would render vision indistinct; though the indistinctness arising from this cause, is only about the 1/5449 part of that which arises from the different refrangibility of the rays of light, as Sir Isaac Newton has demonstrated. Nature has, however, contrived a remedy for this also, by making the crystalline humour more dense and solid near its centre, that the rays of light which fall near its axis, may have their refraction increased, so as to meet at the same point with those which fall at a distance from its axis.

_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 princ.i.p.al 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 quant.i.ty 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 quant.i.ty 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 quant.i.ty of light from falling near the circ.u.mferences 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 a.s.sistance 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 gla.s.s 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 canva.s.sed 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 circ.u.mstances, 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 a.n.a.logy 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 a.n.a.logy 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 circ.u.mstance, 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 circ.u.mstances, 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 ill.u.s.trated 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 pa.s.ses 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 ill.u.s.trated 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 circ.u.mstance 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 pa.s.s over the opinions of Galen, Ga.s.sendus, 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 a.s.sist 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 const.i.tution 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 circ.u.mstances. 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 ill.u.s.trious 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 princ.i.p.al 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.