Eye Glasses during the GAoP

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Well

I found this picture by accident some time ago there we have early glasses with some sort of frames or laces:

Luis de Velasco II, Marqués de Salinas, circa 1607

[Mission]

There's something very post-actual-painting-looking about those frames...

Although here's another, very similar one (possibly the same one with the removal of the arm and book) of Luis de Velasco y Castilla wearing the same general design, so I'm probably wrong. That downward loop on the ear-piece is very curious looking. It's just about the same in both images, too.

[Mission]

I found this in Elizabeth Bennion's, Antique Medical Instruments:

This suggests that eyeglasses with some way to attach them to the wearer's head existed in 1700. (Quick, someone over there go check the British Optical Ass'n Library for verification.) I do wish we knew the dates of each of those.

Also, according to Bennion, eye glasses and pince nez glasses were very popular and common and could be fairly cheaply purchased.

My link to the above photo got broken somehow, so I fixed it. Image 359, with sidepieces is dated to 1700 like Grymm's pair. So unless both sources are wrong, they clearly existed at that time.

Well I got to talking with someone who wears glasses about this and he was all curious to know if Bennion's book was accurate. So I sent an email to the British Optical Association Library asking about it. Here is the response:

Bennion's book is well known for being error-strewn, although for its day it was a decent attempt to draw together knowledge on a little-covered topic and many of her mistakes have only been identified as a result of subsequent research. She is not correct on this point.

The precise date for the introduction of sides has not been established. A guide date of 1727 is usually offered. There is some possibility that an illustration purporting to show sides may date from as early as 1715 but that is not proven and, in any case, we can be certain that sides did not gain widespread popularity before the 1740s and it remained common to wear the earlier form of nose spectacles until at least 1800.

An article of mine on spectacles for re-enactors will appear shortly in an issue of Seaxe magazine: http://www.seaxe.eu/index.html

Yours sincerely

Neil Handley, MA, AMA+, FRSA

Curator, British Optical Association Museum

The College of Optometrists

42 Craven Street

London WC2N 5NG

So based on the most current knowledge, no earpieces (sides) during the GAoP.

[Mission]

I thanked Mr. Handley, and he added some more info for us in his response:

I should add that the image reproduced from Bennion’s book was an original 1932 catalogue photograph from the BOA Museum and in this instance the author was only repeating an error made by my 1930s predecessor at a time when scholarship on the subject was far less developed. I would now date that particular pair (previously numbered 359, but surviving in our collection as item LDBOA1999.986) to the period 1800-1820. The previous date attribution was very wrong indeed.

Incidentally the latest discovery on spectacle sides, which I am about to publish, has provided evidence that the contemporary name for such devices was ‘temple spectacles’ and that in the 1740s they cost 14 shillings each (with a case). I should point out also that these early temple spectacles were also designed to be worn with a powdered wig...the padded terminals are for insertion within the folds of the wig and do not interact in any way with the ears, which were covered.

[jendobyns]

Ah, well that makes sense. You wouldn't want to wear anything that would snag on the wig.

[Daniel]

Chardin painted two self-portraits showing himself with glasses - one with sides, and one without!

Chardin, Self-Portrait, 1771.

Chardin, Self-Portrait, 1775.

[Mission]

These posts are from the thread "But I stole 'em from a...", starting with this post. I was going to comment on them there, but I think it makes more sense to answer it here.

Er.... ain't them blue tinted glasses s'posed ta be a treatment fer Syphalis?

I do believe so... as I believe it causes sensitivity to light...

Know anyone who does 18th C. Physician?

I have never seen proof for any such thing for GAoP thus far. (If I do, I will be sure to post it.)

The Chirurgion's Apprentice wrote an article on tinted glasses that basically says the same thing as I have: there is no connection between syphilis and wearing of colored lenses from period. (Nor did she find any evidence of syphilitic patients having eyes sensitive to the light.) It makes me wonder where this one got started...

[Mission]

We were talking about tinted eyeglasses on Facebook and I came across some interesting info on the availability and pricing of glasses during period. So I thought I'd share it here for future reference.

On their page Eyeglasses Through the Ages, AntiqueSpectacles.com says,

"By the end of the 15th century, spectacle peddlers who were selling glasses was a common sight on the streets of Western Europe. People often rummaged through baskets filled with German metal and leather spectacles in an effort to improve their vision. The purchaser tried on several pair and finally selected the one of his preference. This demand increased exponentially after 1665, when the first newspaper, the London Gazette, appeared."

Dr. Glyn Walsh explains in his article "Spectacles Through the Ages and Period Inaccuracies" on optometry.co.uk:

"Spectacles have never really been a luxury item in the past 350 years, although the price of the cheaper types possibly rose a little in real terms in the 18th and 19th centuries... By the end of the 17th century, the price of imports had fallen to 3s 4d (wholesale) for “a number of boxes of spectacles”, each apparently containing more than a dozen pairs of (possibly German) spectacles – perhaps 1d a pair retail." (Glyn, p. 33)

This doesn't speak to the price of colored lenses, of course. Samuel Pepys comment in his diary when he purchased a pair was "I did buy me a pair of green spectacles, to see whether they will help my eyes." (Pepys, Dec. 24, 1666) It doesn't really tell us much about the cost, but it's so offhanded that I can't believe they were outrageously expensive. It seems doubtful he would have purchased something really expensive without first knowing if they would work.

Glyn's article is directed at reenactors and contains some interesting info.