History of Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Serefeddin  Sabuncuoglu  wrote  a  book  named  Cerrahiyetul  Haniye  (Imperial  Surgery  Book)  in  XV.  Century.  Three copies  of  this  hand-written  book  are  found  at  three different  libraries.  This  book  gives  important  data  about  the knowledge  and  dexterity  of  the  physicians  of  Anatolia  at  that t ime;  besides  this,  it  gives  important  knowledges  about  the spoken and written Turkish language at that time. This  hand-written  book  is  about  the  interventions  for various  diseases  of  human  body.  Most  of  the  interventions are  shown  by  miniatures.  The  surgeon  takes  graet  care  in writing  his  book.  This  indicates  the  high  scientific  level  of  the book. There  are  191  topics  in  the  book  totally,  57  topics  in  the  first part,  98  topics  in  the  second  and  36  topics  in  the  third  part consecutively.  5  topics  of  the  first  part  (12nd,  13rd,  15th, 16th,  17th),  17  topics  of  the  second  part  (4th,  5th,  from  8th to  18th,  from  20th  to  23d)  are  related  to  ophthalmological diseases  and  treatments.  The  sum  of  the  ophthalmological topics is 22.  In  this  study,  the  subjects  which  tell  the  diseases  and treatment  suggestions  about  various  diseases  of  the  lids, eyelashes,  layers  of  the  eye  are  scrutinized  and  compared with the current knowledge.

Au cours de la seconde moitié du XIXe siècle, l'ophtalmologie se développe comme une spécialité médicale à part entière. Des chaires universitaires, des hôpitaux et des cliniques, des associations professionnelles et une presse spécialisée apparaissent dans plusieurs pays européens ainsi qu'aux États-Unis. Une nouvelle catégorie de praticiens maîtrisant les connaissances de leur temps sur l'appareil visuel commence à réclamer le monopole sur toutes les questions concernant les yeux et la vision. Ceci est le point de départ d'un conflit avec d'autres professionnels, notamment les opticiens-lunetiers, artisans spécialisés depuis des siècles dans l'art de fabriquer les verres optiques.
Cette contribution propose d’analyser les caractéristiques et les enjeux du conflit de compétences entre ophtalmologistes et opticiens qui s’est produit au courant des dernières décennies du XIXe siècle. Elle construit une étude de cas autour des ophtalmologistes et des opticiens-lunetiers français. Le texte est organisé en trois parties : la première présente les différentes sujets parmi lesquels les questions concernant la santé de la vue étaient partagées avant l’autonomisation de l’ophtalmologie comme spécialité médicale et esquisse les caractéristiques du processus d’émergence de l’ophtalmologie au XIXe siècle ; la deuxième analyse les relations entre ophtalmologistes et opticiens en France au cours des dernières décennies du XIXe siècle ; la dernière examine l’essor d’une véritable « soif du regard » chez ces deux groupes de professionnels au prisme du développement du marché des lunettes dans la France fin-de-siècle.

The modern physiological optics introduces the notions related to the conditions of fusion of binocular images by the concept of correspondence, due to Christiaan Huygens (1704), and by an experiment attributed to Christoph Scheiner (1619). The conceptualization of this experiment dates, in fact, back to Ptolemy (90-168) and Ibn al-Haytham (d. after 1040). The present paper surveys Ibn al-Haytham's knowledge about the mechanisms of binocular vision. The article subsequently explains why Ibn al-Haytham, a mathematician, but here an experimenter, did not give the circular figure of the theoretical horopter, construction due to Gerhard Vieth (1818) and Johannes Müller (1826). But, on the other hand, it is clear that Ibn al-Haytham's experimental study puts in place the notion of corresponding points, the cases of homonymous and cross diplopia, and even prepares the discovery of Panum area.

L’analisi dei paralleli testuali mediante «parole traccianti» consente precisare le idee di Werner, Björnbo, Vogl, Lindberg e Federici Vescovini sull’eredità latina di al-Kindi. Presa l’eredità nel senso lato di influenza, qualunque siano gli intermediari di diffusione, si può affermare che al-Kindi ha influenzato lo sviluppo dell’ottica e della prospettiva nell’Europa medievale e rinascimentale. Presa l’eredità nel senso stretto di conoscenza diretta dell’ottica di al-Kindi, viene dimostrato che molti temi alkindiani furono conosciuti soltanto attraverso fonti secondarie.

Introduction At present our historical studies of Renaissance color philosophy and science resembles the pieces of a mosaic, only some of which have been assembled to form a larger picture. The task is difficult: the sixteenth century saw an explosion in Aristotelian commentaries and textbooks, most of which have not been carefully examined by modern scholars. The medical tradition saw a similar deluge in printed works, including new commentaries on Avicenna, the revival of Hippocratic and Galenic medicine and philosophy, the ascendency of the discipline of anatomy, and new challenges to traditional medicine – all of which were opportunities for reexamining the importance of color in health, disease, theories of complexion and the four humors, anatomy, and natural processes generally. New philosophical systems came to the fore, notably the alchemical philosophies inspired by Paracelsus; the Neoplatonic, Hermetic, and magical directions inspired by Marsilio Ficino and others; the revival of ancient Scepticism; the Christianized Epicureanism of figures such as Pierre Gassendi; and eclectic philosophies that combined Aristotelian, Stoic, Platonic, and Hermetic, ideas with Renaissance animism – often, as in Bernardino Telesio or Francis Bacon, cast as anti-Aristotelian philosophy. The European conception of the natural world affected by the projects of exploration and colonization, and devising new methods of getting a handle on this wealth of new information became paramount. The science of mechanics developed dramatically, and during the first half of the seventeenth century the mechanical philosophy was ascendant, effecting radical changes to the notions of density, rarity, transparency, and opacity – concepts that were fundamental to how color was theorized. The status of painters and painting rose significantly. Intellectual reflections on painting, including color, became common, both because training in drawing and painting became widespread among the learned, and because painters themselves entered the orbit of the litterati. Mining and minerology was increasingly important in Europe, and works (such as Georg Agricola's De re metallica) on metals, stones, and gems were written that combined the philosophical and the practical (see chapter 10). The increasing popularity of Kunstkammer, or cabinets of curiosity, offered a new locus for knowledge transfer among different groups. The science of optics was, moreover, transformed by advances in ocular anatomy together with the quest to mathematically comprehend devices such as the telescope and camera obscura; alongside this, philosophers began to rethink what the act of seeing entails. For all of the above, particularly its relevance to color, our current knowledge is incomplete. One way to make sense of these myriad changes is to focus on the fact that the color worlds – consisting of practices, concepts (including language), and objects – of various artisans and intellectuals began to overlap during this period, with major consequences for philosophical and scientific reflections about color (Baker et al, 2016). Social and disciplinary boundaries became increasingly porous, even while many disciplines themselves underwent transformations.

Between 800-1300 Islamic World produced over 60 eye doctors, and surgeons. These scholars produced remarkable books on ophthalmology which will be considered to encyclopedias today. They invented new techniques, operated on eyes, introduced new drugs, described various eye ailments, their treatments. Their books are still being translated into European languages which speaks for their usefulness and immortality. This is one field of medicine in which Muslim scholars made most of the contributions.

Ocular anatomy in the sixteenth century has been relatively neglected. Many well-known histories of visual theory neglect the role played by sixteenth-century anatomists in shaping theories of vision, perhaps because the century has often been seen as a mere prelude to Keper’s new mathematical account of the retinal theory of vision. Furthermore, traditional sixteenth-century accounts in the history of medicine tend to neglect visual theory altogether. Recent work has given us a far better understanding of the purpose, scope, and place of anatomy in the sixteenth century, but these gains have yet to be fully applied to ocular dissection.

This chapter takes a closer look at sixteenth-century anatomy of the eye and its connection to the anatomy theatre. Not surprisingly, Vesalius plays a major role in reshaping ocular anatomy, but his influence is complex: he neglects what previous anatomists have said about the parts of the eye, much of which is more accurate from a modern perspective, and he privileges Galen’s account over careful dissection. The eye is a small organ whose intricate parts would have been difficult to see clearly in a crowded theatre, and so it is not surprising that the man who built his reputation on spectacular anatomical demonstration would fail to investigate it rigorously. Afterwards, rather than build upon pre-Vesalian accounts many anatomists, most notably Realdo Colombo, developed ocular anatomy explicitly contra Vesalius. Towards the end of the century we finally have clear historical evidence of careful ocular dissection being highlighted at the anatomy theatre. The most significant figure in this connection is Hieronymus Fabricius ab Aquapendente at Padua, who built the first permanent anatomical theatre there. He not only dissected eyes publicly, but he also integrated anatomy with natural philosophy and mathematical optics, and the resulting conception of vision and the eye was disseminated throughout Europe by his many international students.

297 pp. Springer (Archimedes) – This book explores the interrelationship between optics, vision and perspective before the Classical Age, examining binocularity in particular. The author shows how binocular vision was one of the key juncture points between the three concepts. In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the concept of Perspectiva – the Latin word for optics – encompassed many areas of enquiry that had been viewed since antiquity as interconnected, but which afterwards were separated: optics was incorporated into the field of physics (i.e., physical and geometrical optics), vision came to be regarded as the sum of various psycho-physiological mechanisms involved in the way the eye operates (i.e., physiological optics and psychology of vision) and the word 'perspective' was reserved for the mathematical representation of the external world (i.e., linear perspective). The author shows how this division, which emerged as a result of the spread of the sciences in classical Europe, turns out to be an anachronism if we confront certain facts from the immediately preceding periods. It is essential to take into account the way medieval scholars posed the problem – which included all facets of the Latin word perspectiva – when exploring the events of this period. This book will appeal to a broad readership, from philosophers and historians of science, to those working in geometry, optics, ophthalmology and architecture.

www.troxlerforum.ch was a website dedicated to the life and work of Ignaz Paul Vital Troxler. It was started on January 12, 2001 and updated until December 5, 2004.  It contains informations and  a list of references on Troxler's medical, philosophical, and political activities and the reception of his work.

The science and philosophy of color in the early modern period is a complex and unwieldy area of study. How color was used and understood in medicine, philosophy, literature, language, and manual work such as painting, dyeing, glassmaking—along with directions and degrees of influence among these groups—has yet to be satisfactorily mapped out. Nevertheless, relatively recent scholarly work has provided at least some basic historical and philosophical outlines. What is considered here—namely, what philosophers and other litterati wrote about color and related topics—underwent several distinct changes between in the period covered, i.e., about 1550 to 1750. This entry is organized into four rough periods: color in late scholasticism, changes due to the rise of corpuscular philosophies, and Newton’s new account of color and its initial reception, and other developments in the first half of the eighteenth century.

Some of these changes are related to shifts in what today might be called the scientific understanding of color, namely developments linked to the growing culture of experimentation. Indeed, one of the most iconic experiments in the history of science, Newton’s prism experiments, occurred during this period. Other changes are linked to the rise of new philosophical approaches—mechanical and corpuscular philosophies, chymical philosophies, Neoplatonism, Epicureanism, and so on. Developments in the anatomy and physiology of the eye and the brain also affected the understanding of color. Finally, this period saw changes in technology, social relations (especially between scholars and craftsmen), and language. In general, the primary referent for color in philosophical works went from colored bodies at the beginning of our period to color sensations or perceptions at the end. This makes it easy to mistake what what was at issue for an author, and it is at times not obvious was at stake in various debates. Partly for this reason, “color” will be broken down in to four aspects: (1) colors in bodies, (2) colors in the medium, (3) color in the eye (i.e., the physiological response to color), and (4) the sensation of color. Each of these aspects of color will be addressed within the first thee historical divisions; due to the complex nature of color in the eighteenth century, however, we can only point to key concerns and developments.

Leonardo’s research on the eye and vision has given rise to contrasting assessments, ranging from the apology of his explanation of how the eye works as a camera obscura to the most critical attitude. The negative judgments derive some of their strength from the fact that the practice of anatomy and linear perspective are well documented in Leonardo. Thus one expects him to have had empirically based knowledge of the organs dissected, as well as comprehensive skills in optics. As we will see, none of these ideas is entirely right.

Cet article a pour objectif d'analyser les débats sur les normes définissant l'oeil et la vision « normaux » pendant la seconde moitié du XIX e siècle en Europe. Il s'attache en particulier à la création des tableaux ophtalmologiques, l'un des principaux instruments utilisés pour mesurer l'acuité visuelle. Après avoir évoqué le cadre historique dans lequel les tableaux visuels modernes ont été développés, nous présenterons les plus célèbres d'entre eux ainsi que leurs caractéristiques. Nous analyserons ensuite les débats entre ophtalmologistes sur ce que sont une vision ou un oeil dits normaux et nous montrerons le décalage entre les définitions théoriques avancées et les résultats des études cliniques. Enfin, nous considérerons la question de la mesure de l'acuité visuelle en dévoilant, d'une part, la volonté des spécialistes d' établir un cadre normatif et, d'autre part, les multiples obstacles qu'ils ont affrontés. Mots-clés. Histoire de l'ophtalmologie, acuité visuelle, histoire des sens, histoire sociale de la médecine au XIX e siècle Abstract. This article aims to reconstruct and analyze debates centring on normal eye and vision standards during the second half of the 19 th century in Europe. It particularly addresses the creation of ophthalmology charts, one of the main tools for measuring visual acuity. Having briefly described the historical context in which modern eye charts were developed, we will present the better known ones of these and their characteristics. We will then analyze ophthalmologists' debates about what constitutes a normal eye and normal vision, and show the discrepancy between established definitions and clinical studies. Finally, we will consider the issue of measuring eyesight while focusing, on the one hand, on specialists' desire to create a

Entre 1916 y 1917, el doctor Ignasi Barraquer filmó en Barcelona y ayudado por el operador Francesc Puigvert una serie de películas en las que registraba su técnica de la facoéresis para operar las cataratas. Esos filmes que sirvieron de apoyo en congresos y clases magistrales se conservan en la Filmoteca de Catalunya agrupados en la antología Oftalmología por el profesor I. Barraquer de Barcelona (1917) que muestra cuatro operaciones oftalmológicas a través de una estudiada puesta en escena cinematográfica.
Aunque la propuesta iconográfica de esas imágenes no resulta novedosa en comparación con tratados anatómico-quirúrgicos previos, el objetivo de la comunicación busca ahondar en las implicaciones en la nueva cultura visual de la modernidad que supondrá la incorporación del cinematógrafo en la sala de operaciones, en este caso oftalmológicas, teniendo en consideración si con la “emancipación de la visión” (Crary, 2008:45) que acompañaría la expansión de las tecnologías maquinales de producción y reproducción de imágenes, emerge a la vez “una pluralidad de medios para recodificar la actividad del ojo, para regimentarla, para intensificar su productividad e impedir su distraccion”.

297 pp. Springer (Archimedes) – This book explores the interrelationship between optics, vision and perspective before the Classical Age, examining binocularity in particular. The author shows how binocular vision was one of the key juncture points between the three concepts. In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the concept of Perspectiva – the Latin word for optics – encompassed many areas of enquiry that had been viewed since antiquity as interconnected, but which afterwards were separated: optics was incorporated into the field of physics (i.e., physical and geometrical optics), vision came to be regarded as the sum of various psycho-physiological mechanisms involved in the way the eye operates (i.e., physiological optics and psychology of vision) and the word 'perspective' was reserved for the mathematical representation of the external world (i.e., linear perspective). The author shows how this division, which emerged as a result of the spread of the sciences in classical Europe, turns out to be an anachronism if we confront certain facts from the immediately preceding periods. It is essential to take into account the way medieval scholars posed the problem – which included all facets of the Latin word perspectiva – when exploring the events of this period. This book will appeal to a broad readership, from philosophers and historians of science, to those working in geometry, optics, ophthalmology and architecture.

Glaucoma in children differs from adult-onset disease and typically requires surgical intervention. However, affected children exhibit a spectrum of disease severity and prospective data guiding the choice of operation are lacking. This article reviews common procedures and a surgical approach to pediatric glaucoma.

297 pp. Springer (Archimedes) – Early modern physiological optics introduced the concept of correspondence to the study of the conditions for the fusion of binocular images. The formulation of this concept has been ascribed to Christiaan Huygens (in a work published posthumously in 1704) and to an experiment often attributed to Christoph Scheiner (1619). Here it will be shown that Scheiner's experiment in fact had already been conceptualized, first in antiquity by Ptolemy (90-168 AD), then in the Middle Ages by Ibn al-Haytham (Latinized as Alhacen) (d. after 1040). The extent of the latter's knowledge of the mechanisms of binocular vision will be analyzed. It will be explained why Ibn al-Haytham, who was a mathematician but addressed this problem as an experimentalist, succeeded in discovering the theoretical horopter (the locus of points in space that yields single vision) and yet failed to recognize that it could be described as a circular plane around the viewer's head, credit for which must instead go to Vieth (1818) and Müller (1826). Through his experimental studies, Ibn al-Haytham established the notion of corresponding points, explored what the cases of homonymous (direct) and heteronymous (crossed) diplopia reveal about the mechanisms of vision, and prepared the ground for the discovery by Panum of the fusional area. The influence on Western science of al-Haytham's pioneering treatise Kitāb al-manāẓir (Book of Optics) is examined, beginning with his successors in the Latin-speaking world, and in particular Italy.

In medieval and renaissance Europe a range of medical practitioners treated diseases of the eye. These included oculists—surgical specialists whose goal was to preserve and restore vision—barber surgeons, learned surgeons, and physicians. Did oculists and barber surgeons have a theory of vision that informed their practice? To what extent did they consider the various opinions about vision derived from Galen, Aristotle, or the writers on mathematical optics (i.e., the perspectivists)? What was their understanding of ocular anatomy, how was this knowledge arrived at, and how did this relate to their understanding of both visual theory and surgery, particularly cataract surgery? What about the reverse: did practicing ocular surgery affect one’s anatomical (and physiological) understanding of the eye, and did this practice-based knowledge of the eye influence the accounts of vision by university trained physicians, philosophers, or mathematicians?

To address these questions I examine three figures. Georg Bartisch (c. 1535-1607) was a renowned oculist with no university education who lived most of his life in Dresden. His Ophthalmodouleia (1583), written is German, is the most significant work on eye surgery and diseases in the sixteenth century. Ambroise Paré (1510-1590) was perhaps the most famous barber surgeon in the sixteenth century, and his encyclopedic and enormously popular work on surgery, while written in French, was translated into Latin and many vernacular languages. Finally, Hieronymus Fabricius ab Aquapendente (1533-1619) was the chair of surgery, and then surgery and anatomy, at the University of Padua, the most renowned medical school in Europe at the time. His Pentateuchos chirurgicum (1592), written in Latin, was republished many times over the course of the seventeenth century, and after 1619 this work was published together with his Operationes chirurgicae.

I show that, for a time, ocular surgeons exerted a crucial, if indirect, influence on both anatomy and visual theory. Oculists developed their own understanding of the eye through manual practice: theirs was an eye whose interior dimensions and configuration were constructed more through the probing touch of the cataract needle than through dissection. Before the end of the sixteenth century, this oculist’s eye appears to have been a key reason why anatomists since Galen so often depicted a large aqueous chamber compared to modern models of the eye (or indeed, Fabricius’s model), and to the extent that they considered the interior configuration of actual eyes, mathematicians and philosophers accommodated their notions to the experiences of oculists, rather than the reverse. I also demonstrate a shift towards the end of the sixteenth century in which the influence of the oculist’s eye was diminished

In the Due regole della prospettiva pratica , Vignola and Danti criticize an heterodox system of perspective with two vanishing points. The working drawings of thirty medieval pictures fitting with this definition reveal that these pictures do not meet any type of known perspective system. In particular, they defy the rules of the "synthetic perspective" (Panofsky, White) and those of the "bifocal perspective" (Parronchi). Arguments are put forward to recognize an application of the principles of binocular vision appearing in medieval optical treatises (Ibn al-Haytham and his Latin commentators). Under this hypothesis, the reconstruction of ground plans from perspective views leads to spatial results, both consistent and conform to contemporaneous architectural models. These facts suggest that binocular vision was applied to perspective representation in the Middle Ages.

650 pp. Wayenborgh-Kugler (Hirschberg History of Ophthalmology 16) – This book is a continuation of the research on the representation of the eye initiated by Prof. Ludwig Choulant (University of Dresden) and Prof. Hugo Magnus (University of Breslau) at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. The aim of the book is to provide all those who need information on how the eye was conceived in a given historical context, with clear and concise iconographic and lexicographic data. The first section contains about 700 images of the eye (first handwritten, then printed) distributed among 450 authors. Each record reproduces the figures of the eye with their own specific anatomical terminology. The second section provides a cluster analysis of the eye figures: the result is a dendrogram, which accounts for the main types of representation of the eye found in the history of ocular anatomy. The work is complemented by a 40-page Index of Concepts containing all the anatomical terms found in the book.

Serefeddin Sabuncuoglu wrote a book named Cerrahiyetul
Haniye (Imperial Surgery Book) in XV. Century. Three
copies of this hand-written book are found at three
different libraries. This book gives important data about the
knowledge and dexterity of the physicians of Anatolia at that
time; besides this, it gives important knowledges about the
spoken and written Turkish language at that time.
This hand-written book is about the interventions for
various diseases of human body. Most of the interventions
are shown by miniatures. The surgeon takes graet care in
writing his book. This indicates the high scientific level of the
book.
There are 191 topics in the book totally, 57 topics in the first
part, 98 topics in the second and 36 topics in the third part
consecutively. 5 topics of the first part (12nd, 13rd, 15th,
16th, 17th), 17 topics of the second part (4th, 5th, from 8th
to 18th, from 20th to 23d) are related to ophthalmological
diseases and treatments. The sum of the ophthalmological
topics is 22.
In this study, the subjects which tell the diseases and
treatment suggestions about various diseases of the lids,
eyelashes, layers of the eye are scrutinized and compared
with the current knowledge.

Among the health emergency of World War I, the one relating to the visual organs injuries is one of the most serious. The use of weapons of new type (grenades, shells, shrapnel) that produce chips that are projected on faces, brings the number of soldiers eye-injured to an already impressive quantity at the end of the first year of conflict. This emergency is completely unexpected and it is particularly serious because this kind of trauma was extremely disabling. This situation cause a reaction by French ophthalmologists who start working to improve the organization of assistance, to administer effective treatments and surgery, and even on some issues beyond the medical field (legislation, assistance for war blinds). This article presents the main issues that French ophthalmologists have had to confront with during the Great War and, through this, to question the impact of the First World War on the development of ophthalmology as a medical specialty.

This article contains the first edition of a fragment on eye diseases attributed to Galen. In fact, it reflects a pre-Galenic concept of anatomy, which is know to us only through secondary sources.
The fragment consists of only a few lines which are crossed out by the first hand. The article discusses why this may have happened.

Cet article a pour objectif d’analyser les débats sur les normes définissant l’œil et la vision « normaux » pendant la seconde moitié du XIXe siècle en Europe. Il s’attache en particulier à la création des tableaux ophtalmologiques, l’un des principaux instruments utilisés pour mesurer l’acuité visuelle. Après avoir évoqué le cadre historique dans lequel les tableaux visuels modernes ont été développés, nous présenterons les plus célèbres d’entre eux ainsi que leurs caractéristiques. Nous analyserons ensuite les débats entre ophtalmologistes sur ce que sont une vision ou un œil dits normaux et nous montrerons le décalage entre les définitions théoriques avancées et les résultats des études cliniques. Enfin, nous considérerons la question de la mesure de l’acuité visuelle en dévoilant, d’une part, la volonté des spécialistes d’établir un cadre normatif et, d’autre part, les multiples obstacles qu’ils ont affrontés.