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.