%0 Journal Article %T Why the anonymous and everyday objects are important: using the Science Museum’s collections to re-write the history of vision aids %A Gemma Almond %D 2020 %V %N Spring 2020 %K anonymous collections %K historical methods %K material culture %K Vision aids %X The history of nineteenth-century spectacles and eyeglasses is unusual in the extent to which it has incorporated objects and material evidence. However, both collectors and historians have favoured the pristine object or the object with noteworthy providence at the expense of more utilitarian frames. By drawing upon my experience as a Collaborative Doctoral Partnership (CDP) student at the Science Museum, this article reflects on how large anonymous and primarily uncatalogued collections can be fruitfully used in historical research. By case-studying the retail and design of vision aids, it argues that everyday or anonymous objects – the broken, scratched, un-named – are a valuable historical source. It highlights the usefulness of material culture for exploring the experiences of use or of users that otherwise leave little trace and proposes how problems of interpretation can be overcome through the study of a range of additional sources: business records, trade catalogues, advertising material, imagery, popular literature and medical literature. Whilst researching an anonymous collection is labour-intensive, the material evidence of utilitarian and noteworthy spectacles and eyeglasses allowed the experience of nineteenth-century vision aid wear and vision testing to be fully explored and communicated to both an academic and non-academic audience. %Z Once a Week, 20 May 1871, p 504 %Z For example, see Thomas H Court and Moritz Von Rohr, ‘On the Development of Spectacles in London from the End of the Seventeenth Century’, Transactions of the Optical Society, 30.1 (1928–9), 1–21; Michael Rhodes, ‘A Pair of Fifteenth-Century Spectacle Frames from the City of London’, Antiquaries Journal, 62 (1982), 57–7 %Z For the most comprehensive work, see William Rosenthal, 1996, Spectacles and Other Vision Aids: A History and Guide to Collecting (San Francisco, CA: Norman). For other examples, see Hugh Orr, 1985, Illustrated History of Early Antique Spectacles (London: The Author); Derek C Davidson, 2002, Spectacles, Lorgnettes and Monocles (Buckinghamshire: Shire); Richard Corson, 2011, Fashions in Eyeglasses, 3rd edition (London: Peter Owen). %Z See, for example, Neil Handley’s study of prominent brands in Cult Eyewear: The World’s Enduring Classics (London: Merrell Publishers Ltd, 2011); and numerous short articles in the Ophthalmic Antiques Collectors Club Bulletin (East Chillington: The Club, 1982–1985), and The Newsletter: Ophthalmic Antiques International Collectors Club (East Chillington: The Club, 1985–present), available at the Science Museum Library %Z See, for example, Igor Kopytoff’s pioneering suggestion that objects, like people, have ‘social lives’, in The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspectives, edited by Arjun Appadurai (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp 64–92. %Z See also broader studies on the emotive relationship scholars working in museums and archives form because of their proximity to historic artefacts, such as Susan Stewart, ‘Prologue: From the Museum of Touch’, in Material Memories, edited by Marius Kwint, Christopher Breward and Jeremy Aynsley (Oxford: Berg, 1999), pp 17–36. %Z The exhibition ‘Artist: Unknown’ ran between 9 July and 22 September 2019. For information on the thinking behind this exhibition see, https://www.cam.ac.uk/artistunknown [accessed 22 August 2019] %Z The surviving auction catalogues marked up by his collectors, for example, document the acquisition of vision aids for a low price and amongst a vast array of miscellaneous items. These are currently uncatalogued but are available at the Wellcome Library. Catalogues for Stevens auction house were viewed for 2 March 1915; 13 April 1920; 2 September 1924; 21 and 22 August 1928; 21 September 1928; 14 October 1928; 23 October 1928; 26 and 27 March 1930; 16 and 17 September 1930; 7 November 1930; 5 August 1931; 20 and 21 October 1931; 20 and 21 September 1921; 20 and 21 October 1932; 16 April 1935; and catalogues for Glendining auction house for 29 July 1932; 29 October 1934; 14 January 1935. %Z Science Museum Technical File, T/1921-323: Catherine Gates, Matthew William Dunscombe: A Bristol Optician (1997), Derek C Davidson, ‘Matthew William Dunscombe the First Great Collector of Antique Spectacles’, Ophthalmic Antiques Newsletter, 4, p 51, and Margaret Mitchell, ‘Optics and the Science Museum’, The Optician, 21 September 1979, pp 22–24 %Z These findings have been compiled from the trade directory findings of project SIMON that are detailed in Gloria Clifton’s Directory of British Scientific Instrument Makers 1550–1851. ‘IM’ is an abbreviation of instrument maker. %Z For a discussion of street selling, and pedlars in rural areas see, for example, Richard Corson, 2011, Fashions in Eyeglasses, 3rd edition (London: Peter Owen), p 66; and C W Elson, 1935, Origin and Development of Spectacles (Worthing: Worthing Archaeological Society), who discussed it in the context of ‘villages’, p 13; and Hugh Orr, 1985, Illustrated History of Early Antique Spectacles (London: The Author), who discussed pedlars travelling from ‘town to town’, p 7. %Z Makers names are: Dudley Adams, Thomas Rubergall, Robert Brettell Bate, A. Abraham, Blunt & Son, John Braham, C.W. Dixey and W. Harris, and can be found by searching: https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/ %Z For the discussion of the overall usefulness of trade cards as a supplement to advertisements and trade directory records see, Michael A Crawforth, 1985, ‘Evidence from Trade Cards for the Scientific Instrument Industry’, Annals of Science, 42.5, 453–544; Morrison-Low, pp 11, 226. %Z Used with permission from the Science Museum Picture Library/Science Museum %Z North Wales Chronicle, 15 August 1837, 22 August 1837; The Bradford Observer, 4 January 1838, 11 January 1838; The Derby Mercury, 15 January 1840, 22 January 1840, 29 January 1840, 5 February 1840; North Wales Chronicle, 23 June 1840; Preston Chronicle, 10 October 1840; The Blackburn Standard, 11 November 1840, 18 November 1840 %Z See, Henry Mayhew, 1851, London Labour and the London Poor; A Cyclopaedia of the Condition and Earnings of Those that Will Work, Those that Cannot Work, and Those that Will Not Work, Vol 1 (London: Griffin, Bohn and Company), pp 323–5; University of Nottingham Archives, Manuscripts & Special Collections, HT/7/1/30: Letter from Emma Botham Alderson to her sister Mary Howitt, 26 October 1931; for advertisements see, for example, The Athenaeum, 15 June 1839; The York Herald and General Advertiser, 21 October 1843 %Z Used with permission from the Science Museum Picture Library/Science Museum %Z Used with permission from the Science Museum Picture Library/Science Museum %Z See, for example, Charles Eyland, Patent Number 451, 22 February 1861 %Z See, for example, The Critic, 15 July 1852, p 386, 16 August 1852, p 435, 15 January 1853, p 54, 15 February 1853, p 106, 15 March 1853, p 159, 15 April 1853, p 215, 16 May 1853, p 251, 15 August 1853, p 447, 15 February 1854, p 109 %Z The Optician, 6 July 1893, p. 692; 31 March 1898, p 30 %Z Sheffield City Archives, SY231, Observations on the Choice and Use of Spectacles, p 8 %Z The Optician, 20 December 1894, p 199 %Z See, for example, John Phillips, 1869, Ophthalmic Surgery and Treatment: With Advice on the Use and Abuse of Spectacles (London: W.B. Keen & Co.), p 51 %Z Science Museum’s Technical File T/1921-323: Catalogue of the ‘Exhibit of Spectacles at the Victorian Era Exhibition’, p 7; See also, for example, Science Museum’s Dunscombe collection, object numbers 1921-323/223 and 1921-323/103 %Z Rosenthal used alternative terminology for side-arms, including ‘temples’ and ‘circular tips’. %Z Used with permission from the Science Museum Picture Library/Science Museum %Z These findings were also cross-checked with frames in the College of Optometry collection. %Z Author’s own photographs, taken with the permission of the Science Museum. %Z See, for example, A J Boult, Patent Number 11,710, 27 August 1884; A Davidson, Patent Number 15,928 6 September 1891; J Rintoul, Patent Number 6127, 24 March 1894; L J Flowerdew, Patent Number 14,458, 15 June 1893; D Rugg, Patent Number 21,755, 13 August 1900 %Z Author’s own photographs, taken with the permission of the Science Museum %Z The London Reader: of Literature, Science, Art and General Information, regularly between 28 November 1868, p 121 and 27 August 1870, p 409 %Z Frequently recorded in Carlisle Archive Centre, DB9/1-77: John Potter Dowell, Cash and Day Book (Sales), 1885–1898 and Cambridge University Library, GBR/0012/Ms Ad.5781-5783: Robert Sadd & Co. Account Books 1837–1851 and Ledgers 1845–1889 %Z See, for example, the cost of a new bridge to a pair of spectacles for 2/6 and a new lens 1/-, when the previously purchased pair of spectacles cost 3/6 in Robert Sadd & Co’s account books. Cambridge University Library, GBR/0012/Ms Ad. 5783: Robert Sadd & Co. Ledger 1, p 104 %Z The Gentleman’s Magazine: and Historical Chronicle, December 1821, p 616 %Z See, for example, the difficulties a lady faced in accessing work, prior to her treatment with spectacles, London Metropolitan Archives, A/KE/B/01/04/004: Royal London Ophthalmic Hospitals, complaint that there was little profit in supplying spectacles, letter dated 20 November 1900. %Z The term ‘privilege’ has also been used by Stephanie Downes, Sally Holloway and Sarah Randles, in ‘A Feeling for Things, Past and Present’, Feeling Things, p 17. %Z For broader discussion on the importance of touch see Robinson, pp 503–20. %I The Science Museum Group %@ 2054-5770 %B eng %U https://journal.sciencemuseum.ac.uk/article/history-of-vision-aids/ %J Science Museum Group Journal