Popular Lectures on Zoonomia / Or The Laws of Animal Life, in Health and Disease

by Thomas Garnett

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 glass 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 quantity 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 pass through the pupil nearly in a state of parallelism.

Another, and perhaps a principal 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, fortassis media diversae densitatis ad lentem objectivam componendam adhibere utile foret, ut a natura factum observamus in oculo, ubi crystallinus humor (fere ejusdem cum 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 pass 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 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.