LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE EFFECTS OF SHORT-SIGHT.
[TO THB EDITOR OF THE " SPZOTA.TOR.1
Sin,—Twice, within a few months, allusion has been made in the columns of the Spectator to a paper written by me on Near- sightedness. On the first occasion, no notice was taken of the mistakes contained in the abstract of my views, because it was thought that the information in regard to them had been obtained in an indirect way, from the notices of the essay given in several of the English papers, such as the Times and Globe, or perhaps from the Revue des Deux Mondes.
Thinking that if anything more was ever said in regard to the matter in your paper, an authentic copy might be of service in informing you of what my views and statements really were, I did myself the honour of sending you a copy of the pamphlet, the safe arrival of which you so courteously acknowledge by observing, in the opening sentence of your review, that " we have received a pamphlet by Dr. E. G. Loring, of New York, and judging by the attention which his views have excited, a man of some local professional standing." It is, therefore presumable that the writer gets his information from the original and not from any indirect sources.
In the remarks which follow there are the same misstatements, -only increased in force and number, that appeared in the first abstract, and it is for this reason that I now ask, in justice to myself, sufficient space to correct the erroneous statements contained in your essay on " The Effects of Short-Sight," in your issue of February 16. I do this with the conviction that when a journal like the Spectator believes the views of anybody worthy a place in its columns, it is at the same time not only willing, but desirous that these views should be correctly stated. That this has not been done, I think can be shown best by quoting a single instance, leaving the others, which are many, to take care of themselves. Ex pede Herculem. The writer declares :—" He [Dr. Loring] maintains that the world is becoming Short-sighted ; that Myopia, as it is technically called, is developed by education, and especially by reading ; that the disease or defect is partially hereditary, and that as education spreads, the inclination to short- sightedness must spread also, until it may become nearly or quite universal among the cultivated classes of Western mankind."
How does this statement, so emphatically expressed, comport with the final conclusion with which my arguments were summed sip, and which reads as follows ?—" lf, now, in the light of what has just been laid down, the question was repeated, (must the number of short-sighted persons necessarily increase in a nation devoted to intellectual pursuits ?) it might be answered, I think, with assurance that there is no danger that the cultivated classes will become near-sighted, provided that while devoting themselves to literary pursuits they are willing to recognise and abide by the few simple laws which have just been dwelt upon. On the contrary, I think there is every reason to believe that with a little care and caution during the short but important period of life just alluded to (eight to sixteen years), the present standard, or normal, eye, formed and perfected in the remotest past, may be continued indefinitely."
The whole tenor of my arguments and the whole purpose of my paper was to show, not" that as education spreads, the inclination towards near-sightedness must necessarily spread also," as assumed for me by the reviewers, but that it need not necessarily do so. And I must, in all candour, say that I am at a loss to understand such misrepresentation, and feel unwilling to submit to it without a protest, which 1 am quite sure your sense of justice will accord to me.—I am, Sir, &c., 126 Madison Avenue, New York. EDWARD G. LORING, M.D.
[We had no intention, of course, of misrepresenting Mr. Loring, and willingly publish his correction. Our impression, derived from a careful perusal of his pamphlet, was that he thought short-sightedness must increase if things remained as they are, and that they would remain as they are. We should have noticed his reservations more carefully.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
