Fig. 1. Plate III, represents the improved lucernal microscope.

Fig. 1. Plate IV. The improved compound and single microscope.

Fig. 2. Plate IV. The best universal compound microscope.

Fig. 3. Plate IV, is what is usually called Culpeper’s, or the common three pillared compound microscope.

Fig. 1. Plate V, represents Martin’s solar opake microscope.

Fig. 4. Plate VI, is a picture of the common solar microscope.

Fig. 1. Plate VII. A, is Cuff’s common compound microscope.

Fig. 3. Plate VIII. Martin’s new microscopic telescope, or convenient portable apparatus for a traveller.

We cannot conclude this chapter better than with the following observations on the microscope. We are indebted to it for many discoveries in natural history; but let us not suppose that the Creator intended to hide these objects from our observation. It is true, this instrument discovers to us as it were a new creation, new series of animals, new forests of vegetables; but he who gave being to these, gave us an understanding capable of inventing means to assist our organs in the discovery of their hidden beauties. He gave us eyes adapted to enlarge our ideas, and capable of comprehending a universe at one view, and consequently incapable of discerning those minute beings, with which he has peopled every atom of the universe. But then he gave properties and qualities to matter of a particular kind, by which it would procure us this advantage, and at the same time elevated the understanding from one degree of knowledge to another, till it was able to discover these assistances for our sight.

It is thus we should consider the discoveries made by those instruments, which have received their birth from an exertion of our faculties. It is to the same power, who created the objects of our admiration, that we are ultimately to refer the means of discovering them. Let no one, therefore, accuse us of prying deeper into the wonders of nature, than was intended by the great author of the universe. There is nothing we discover by their assistance, which is not a fresh source of praise; and it does not appear that our faculties can be better employed, than in finding means to investigate the works of God.

From a partial consideration of these things, we are very apt to criticise what we ought to admire; to look upon as useless what perhaps we should own to be of infinite advantage to us, did we see a little farther; to be peevish where we ought to give thanks; and at the same time to ridicule those who employ their time and thoughts in examining what we were, i. e. some of us most assuredly were created and appointed to study. In short, we are too apt to treat the Almighty worse than a rational man would treat a good mechanic, whose works he would either thoroughly examine, or be ashamed to find any fault with them. This is the effect of a partial consideration of nature; but he who has candor of mind, and leisure to look farther, will be inclined to cry out:

CHAP. II.
OF VISION; OF THE OPTICAL EFFECT OF MICROSCOPES, AND OF THE MANNER OF ESTIMATING THEIR MAGNIFYING POWERS.

The progress that has been made in the science of optics, in the last and present century, particularly by Sir Isaac Newton, may with propriety be ranked among the greatest acquisitions of human knowledge. And Mess. Delaval and Herschel have shewn by their discoveries, that the boundaries of this science may be considerably enlarged.

The rays of light, which minister to the sense of sight, are the most wonderful and astonishing part of the inanimate creation; of which we shall soon be convinced, if we consider their extreme minuteness, their inconceivable velocity, the regular variety of colours they exhibit, the invariable laws according to which they are acted upon by other substances, in their reflections, inflections, and refractions, without the least change of their original properties; and the facility with which they pervade bodies of the greatest density and closest texture, without resistance, without crouding or disturbing each other. These, I believe, will be deemed sufficient proofs of the wonderful nature of these rays; without adding, that it is by a peculiar modification of them, that we are indebted for the advantages obtained by the microscope.

The science of optics, which explains and treats of many of the properties of those rays of light, is deduced from experiments, on which all philosophers are agreed. It is impossible to give an adequate idea of the nature of vision, without a knowledge of these experiments, and the mathematical reasoning grounded upon them; but as to do this would alone fill a large volume, I shall only endeavour to render some of the more general principles clear, that the reader, who is unacquainted with the science of optics, may nevertheless be enabled to comprehend the nature of vision by the microscope. Some of the most important of these principles may be deduced from the following very interesting experiment.

Darken a room, and let the light be admitted therein only by a small hole; then, if the weather be fine, you will see on the wall, which is facing the hole, a picture of all those exterior objects which are opposite thereto, with all their colours, though these will be but faintly seen. The image of the objects that are stationary, as trees, houses, &c. will appear fixed; while the images of those that are in motion, will be seen to move. The image of every object will appear inverted, because the rays cross each other in passing through the small hole. If the sun shine on the hole, we shall see a luminous ray proceed in a strait line, and terminate on the wall. If the eye be placed in this ray, it will be in a right line with the hole and the sun: it is the same with every other object which is painted on the wall. The images of the objects exhibited on the same plane, are smaller in proportion as the objects are further from the hole.

Many and important are the inferences which may be deduced from the foregoing experiment, among which are the following:

1. That light flows in a right line.

2. That a luminous point may be seen from all those places to which a strait line can be drawn from the point, without meeting with any obstacle; and consequently,

3. That a luminous point, by some unknown power, sends forth rays of light in all directions, and is the center of a sphere of light, which extends indefinitely on all sides; and if we conceive some of these rays to be intercepted by a plane, then is the luminous point the summit of a pyramid, whose body is formed by the rays, and its base by the intercepting plane. The image of the surface of an object, which is painted on the wall, is also the base of a pyramid of light, the apex of which is the hole; the rays which form this pyramid, by crossing at the hole, form another, similar and opposite to this, of which the hole is also the summit, and the surface of the object the base.

4. That an object is visible, because all its points are radiant points.

5. That the particles of light are indefinitely small; for the rays, which proceed from the points of all the objects opposite to the hole, pass through it, though extremely small, without embarrassing or confounding each other.

6. That every ray of light carries with it the image of the object from which it was emitted.

The nature of vision in the eye may be imperfectly illustrated by the experiment of the darkened room; the pupil of the eye being considered as the hole through which the rays of light pass, and cross each other, to paint on the retina, at the bottom of the eye, the inverted images of all those objects which are exposed to the sight, so that the diameters of the images of the same object are greater, in proportion to the angles formed at the pupil, by the crossing rays which proceed from the extremities of the object; that is, the diameter of the image is greater, in proportion as the distance is less; or, in other words, the apparent magnitude of an object is in some degree measured by the angle under which it is seen, and this angle increases or diminishes, according as the object is nearer to, or farther from the eye; and consequently, the less the distance is between the eye and the object, the larger the latter will appear.

From hence it follows, that the apparent diameter of an object seen by the naked eye, may be magnified in any proportion we please; for, as the apparent diameter is increased, in proportion as the distance from the eye is lessenned, we have only to lessen the distance of the object from the eye, in order to increase the apparent diameter thereof.[24] Thus, suppose there is an object, A B, Plate I. Fig. 1, which to an eye at E subtends or appears under the angle A E B, we may magnify the apparent diameter in what proportion we please, by bringing our eye nearer to it. If, for instance, we would magnify it in the proportion of F G to A B; that is, if we would see the object under an angle as large as F E G, or would make it appear the same length that an object as long as F G would appear, it may be done by coming nearer to the object. For the apparent diameter is as the distance inversely; therefore, if C D is as much less than C E, as F G is greater than A B, by bringing the eye nearer to the object in the proportion of C D to E D, the apparent diameter will be magnified in the proportion of F G to A B; so that the object A B, to the eye at D, will appear as long as an object F G would appear to the eye at E. In the same manner we might shew, that the apparent diameter of an object, when seen by the naked eye, may be infinite. For since the apparent diameter is reciprocally as the distance of the eye, when the distance of the eye is nothing or when the eye is close to the object at C, the apparent diameter will be the reciprocal of nothing, or infinite.

There is, however, one great inconvenience in thus magnifying an object, without the help of glasses, by placing the eye nearer to it. The inconvenience is, that we cannot see an object distinctly, unless the eye is about five or six inches from it; therefore, if we bring it nearer to our eye than five or six inches, however it may be magnified, it will be seen confusedly. Upon this account, the greatest apparent magnitude of an object that we are used to, is the apparent magnitude when the eye is about five or six inches from it: and we never place an object much within that distance; because, though it might be magnified by these means, yet the confusion would prevent our deriving any advantage from seeing it so large. The size of an object seems extraordinary, when viewed through a convex lens; not because it is impossible to make it appear of the same size to the naked eye, but because at the distance from the eye which would be necessary for this purpose, it would appear exceedingly confused; for which reason, we never bring our eye so near to it, and consequently, as we have not been accustomed to see the object of this size, it appears an extraordinary one.

On account of the extreme minuteness of the atoms of light, it is clear, a single ray, or even a small number of rays, cannot make a sensible impression on the organ of sight, whose fibres are very gross, when compared to these atoms; it is necessary, therefore, that a great number should proceed from the surface of an object, to render it visible. But as the rays of light, which proceed from an object, are continually diverging, different methods have been contrived, either of uniting them in a given point, or of separating them at pleasure: the manner of doing this is the subject of dioptrics and catoptrics.

By the help of glasses, we unite in the same sensible point a great number or rays, proceeding from one point of an object; and as each ray carries with it the image of the point from whence it proceeded, all the rays united must form an image of the object from whence they were emitted. This image is brighter, in proportion as there are more rays united; and more distinct, in proportion as the order, in which they proceeded, is better preserved in their union. This may be rendered evident; for, if a white and polished plane be placed where the union is formed, we shall see the image of the object painted in all its colours on this plane; which image will be brighter, if all adventitious light be excluded from the plane on which it is received.

The point of union of the rays of light, formed by means of a glass lens, &c. is called the FOCUS.

Now, as each ray carries with it the image of the object from whence it proceeded, it follows, that if those rays, after intersecting each other, and having formed an image at their intersection, are again united by a refraction or reflection, they will form a new image, and that repeatedly, as long as their order is not confounded or disturbed.

It follows also, that when the progress of the luminous ray is under consideration, we may look on the image as the object, and the object as the image; and consider the second image as if it had been produced by the first as an object, and so on.

In order to gain a clear idea of the wonderful effects produced by glasses, we must proceed to say something of the principles of refraction.

Any body, which is so constituted as to yield a passage to the rays of light, is called a MEDIUM. Air, water, glass, &c. are mediums of light. If any medium afford an easy passage to the rays of light, it is called a RARE MEDIUM; but if it do not afford an easy passage to these rays, it is called a DENSE MEDIUM.

Let Z, Fig. 2. Plate I. be a rare medium, and Y a dense one; and let them be separated by the plane surface G H. Let I K be a perpendicular to it, and cutting it in C.

With the center C, and any distance, let a circle be described. Then let A C be a ray of light, falling upon the dense medium. This ray, if nothing prevented, would go forward to L; but because the medium Y is supposed to be denser than Z, it will be bent downward toward the perpendicular I K, and describe the line C B.

The ray A C is called the INCIDENT RAY; and the ray C B, the REFRACTED RAY.

The angle A C I is called the ANGLE OF INCIDENCE, and the angle B C K is called the ANGLE OF REFRACTION.

If from the point A upon the right line C I, there be let fall the perpendicular A D, that line is called the sine of the angle of incidence.

In the same manner, if from the point B, upon the right line I K, there be let fall the perpendicular B E, that line will be the sine of the angle of refraction.

The sines of the angles are the measures of the refractions, and this measure is constant; that is, whatever is the sine of the angle of incidence, it will be in a constant proportion to the sine of the angle of refraction, when the mediums continue the same. A general idea of refraction may be formed from the following experiments.

Experiment 1. Let A B C D, Fig. 3. Plate I. represent a vessel so placed, with respect to the candle E, that the shadow of the side A C may fall at D. Suppose the vessel to be now filled with water, and the shadow will withdraw to d; the ray of light, instead of proceeding to D, being refracted or bent to d. And there is no doubt but that an eye, placed at d, would see the candle at e, in the direction of the refracted ray d A. This is also confirmed by the following pleasing experiment.

2. Lay a shilling, or any piece of money, at the bottom of a bason; then withdraw from the bason, till you lose sight of the shilling; fill the bason nearly with water, and the shilling will be seen very plainly, though you are at the same distance from it.

3. Place a stick over a bason which is filled with water; then reflect the sun’s rays, so that they may fall perpendicularly on the surface of the water; the shadow of the stick will fall on the same place, whether the vessel be empty or full.

What has been said of water, may be applied to any transparent medium, only the power of refraction is greater in some than in others. It is from this wonderful property, that we derive all the curious effects of glass, which make it the subject of optics. It is to this we owe the powers of the microscope and the telescope.

To produce these effects, pieces of glass are formed into given figures, which, when so formed, are called lenses. The six following figures are those which are most in use for optical purposes.

1. A PLANE GLASS, one that is flat on each side, and of an equal thickness throughout. F, Fig. 13. Plate I.

2. A DOUBLE CONVEX GLASS, one that is more elevated towards the middle than the edge. B, Fig. 13. Plate I.

3. A DOUBLE CONCAVE is hollow on both sides, or thinner in the middle than at the edges. D, Fig. 13. Plate I.

4. A PLANO CONVEX, flat on one side, and convex on the other. A, Fig. 13. Plate I.

5. A PLANO CONCAVE, flat on one side, and concave on the other. C, Fig. 13. Plate I.

6. A MENISCUS, convex on one side, concave on the other. E, Fig. 13. Plate I.

It has been already observed, that light proceeds invariably from a luminous body, in strait lines, without the least deviation; but if it happen to pass from one medium to another, it always leaves the direction it had before, and assumes a new one. After having taken this new direction, it proceeds in a strait line, till it meets with a different medium, which again turns it out of its course.

A ray of light passing obliquely through a plane glass, will go out in the same direction it entered, though not precisely in the same line. The ray C D, Fig. 4. Plate I. falling obliquely upon the surface of the plane glass A B, will be refracted towards the glass in the direction D E; but when it comes to E, it will be as much refracted the contrary way. If the ray of light had fallen perpendicularly on the surface of the plane glass, it would have passed through it in a strait line, and not have been refracted at all.

If parallel rays of light, as a b c d e f g, Fig. 6. Plate I. fall directly upon a convex lens A B, they will be so bent, as to unite in a point C behind it. For the ray d D which falls perpendicularly upon the middle of the glass, will go through it without suffering any refraction: but those which go through the sides of the lens, falling obliquely on its surface, will be so bent, as to meet the central ray at C. The further the ray a is from the axis of the lens, the more obliquely it will fall upon it. The rays a b c d e f g will be so refracted, as to meet or be collected in the point C, called the principal focus, whose distance, in a double convex lens, is equal to the radius or semi-diameter of the sphere of the convexity of the lens. All the rays cross the middle ray at C, and then diverge from it to the contrary side, in the same manner as they were before converged.

If another lens, of the same convexity, as A B, Fig. 6. Plate I. be placed in the rays, and at the same distance from the focus, it will refract them, so that after going out of it, they will all be parallel again, and go on in the same manner as they came to the first glass A B, but on the contrary sides of the middle ray.

The rays diverge from any radiant point, as from a principal focus: therefore, if a candle be placed at C, in the focus of the convex lens A B, Fig. 6. Plate I. the rays diverging from it will be so refracted by the lens, that after going out of it, they will become parallel. If the candle be placed nearer the lens than its focal distance, the rays will diverge more or less, as the candle is more or less distant from the focus.

If any object, A B, Fig. 7. Plate I. be placed beyond the focus of the convex lens E F, some of the rays which flow from every point of the object, on the side next the glass, will fall upon it, and after passing through it, they will be converged into as many points on the opposite side of the glass; for the rays a b, which flow from the point A, will converge into a b, and meet at C. The rays c d, flowing from the point G, will be converged into c d, and meet at g; and the rays which flow from B, will meet each other again at D; and so of the rays which flow from any of the intermediate points: for there will be as many focal points formed, as there are radiant points in the object, and consequently they will depict on a sheet of paper, or any other light-coloured body, placed at D g C, an inverted image of the object. If the object be brought nearer the lens, the picture will be formed further off. If it be placed at the principal focus, the rays will go out parallel, and consequently form no picture behind the glass.

To render this still plainer, let us divest what has been said of the A’s and B’s, and of the references to figures. When objects are viewed through a flat or plane glass, the rays of light in passing through it, from the object to the eye, proceed in a strait direction and parallel to each other, and consequently the object appeared at the same distance as to the naked eye, neither enlarged or diminished. But if the glass be of a convex form, the rays of light change their direction in passing through the glass, and incline from the circumference towards the center of convexity, in an angle proportional to the convexity, and meet at a point at a less or greater distance from the glass, as it is more or less convex. The point where the rays thus meet is called the focus; when, therefore, the convexity is small, the focus is at a great distance, but when it is considerable, the focus is near; the magnifying power is in proportion to the change made in the rays, or the degree of convexity, by which we are enabled to see an object nearer than we otherwise could; and the nearer it is brought to the eye, the larger will be the angle under which it appears, and consequently the more it will be magnified.

The human eye is so constituted, that it can only have distinct vision, when the rays which fall on it are parallel, or nearly so; because the retina, on which the image is painted, is placed in the focus of the crystalline humor, which performs the office of a lens in collecting rays, and forming the image in the bottom of the eye.

As an object becomes perceptible to us, by means of the image thereof which is formed on the retina, it will, therefore, be seen in that direction, in which the rays enter the eye to form the image, and will always be found in the line, in which the axis of a pencil of rays flowing from it enters the eye. We from hence acquire a habit of judging the object to be situated in that line. Note; as the mind is unacquainted with the refraction the rays suffer before they enter the eye, it judges them to be in the line produced back, in which the axis of a pencil of rays flowing from it is situated, and not in that in which it was before the refraction.

If the rays, therefore, that proceed from an object, are refracted and reflected several times before they enter the eye, and these refractions or reflections change considerably the original direction of the rays which proceed from the object, it is clear, that it will not be seen in that line, which would come strait from it to the eye; but it will be seen in the direction of those rays which enter the eye, and form the image thereof on it.

We perceive the presence and figure of objects, by the impression each respective image makes on the retina; the mind, in consequence of these impressions, forms conclusions concerning the size, position, and motion of the object. It must however be observed, that these conclusions are often rectified or changed by the mind, in consequence of the effects of more habitual impressions. For example, there is a certain distance, at which, in the general business of life, we are accustomed to see objects: now, though the measure of the image of these objects changes considerably when they move from, or approach nearer to us, yet we do not perceive that their size is much altered; but beyond this distance, we find the objects appear to be diminished, or increased, in proportion as they are more or less distant from us.

For instance, if I place my eye successively at two, at four, and at six feet from the same person, the dimensions of the image on the retina will be nearly in the proportion of 1, of ¹⁄₂, of ¹⁄₃, and consequently they should appear to be diminished in the same proportion; but we do not perceive this diminution, because the mind has rectified the impression received on the retina. To prove this, we need only consider, that if we see a person at 120 feet distance, he will not appear so strikingly small, as if the same person should be viewed from the top of a tower, or other building 120 feet high, a situation to which we had not been accustomed.

From hence, also, it is clear, that when we place a glass between the object and the eye, which from its figure changes the direction of the rays of light from the object, this object ought not to be judged as if it were placed at the ordinary reach of the sight, in which case we judge of its size more by habit than by the dimensions of the images formed on the retina; but it must be estimated by the size of the image in the eye, or by the angle formed at the eye, by the two rays which come from the extremity of the object.

If the image of an object, formed after refraction, be greater or less than the angle formed at the eye, by the rays proceeding from the extremities of the object itself, the object will appear also proportionably enlarged or diminished; so that if the eye approach to or remove from the last image, the object will appear to increase or diminish, though the eye should in reality remove from it in one case, or approach toward it in the other; because the image takes place of the object, and is considered instead of it.

The apparent distance of an object from the eye, is not measured by the real distance from the last image; for, as the apparent distance is estimated principally by the ideas we have of their size, it follows, that when we see objects, whose images are increased or diminished by refraction, we naturally judge them to be nearer or further from the eye, in proportion to the size thereof, when compared to that with which we are acquainted. The apparent distance of an object is considerably affected by the brightness, distinctness, and magnitude thereof. Now as these circumstances are, in a certain degree, altered by the refraction of the rays, in their passing through different mediums, they will also, in some measure, affect the estimation of the apparent distance.

In the theory of vision it is necessary to be cautious not to confound the organs of vision with the being that perceives, or with the perspective faculty. The eye is not that which sees, it is only the organ by which we see. A man cannot see the satellites of Jupiter but by a telescope. Does he conclude from this, that it is the telescope that sees those stars? By no means; such a conclusion would be absurd. It is no less absurd to conclude, that it is the eye that sees. The telescope is an artificial organ of sight, but it sees not. The eye is a natural organ of sight, by which we see; but the natural organ sees as little as the artificial.

The eye is a machine, most admirably contrived for refracting the rays of light, and forming a distinct picture of objects upon the retina; but it sees neither the object nor the picture. It can form the picture after it is taken out of the head, but no vision ensues. Even when it is in its proper place, and perfectly sound, it is well known, that an obstruction in the optic nerve takes away vision, though the eye has performed all that belongs to it.[25]

OF THE SINGLE MICROSCOPE.

The single microscope renders minute objects visible, by means of a small glass globule, or convex lens, of a short focus. Let E Y, Fig. 11. Plate I. represent the eye; and O B a small object, situated very near to it; consequently, the angle of its apparent magnitude very large. Let the convex lens R S be interposed between the eye and the object, so that the distance between it and the object may be equal to the focal length; and the rays which diverge from the object, and pass through the lens, will afterwards proceed, and consequently enter the eye parallel: after which, they will be converged, and form an inverted picture on the retina, and the object will be clearly seen; though, if removed to the distance of six inches, its smallness would render it invisible.

When the lens is not held close to the eye, the object is somewhat more magnified; because the pencils, which pass at a distance from the center of the lens, are refracted inward toward the axis, and consequently seem to come from points more remote from the center of the object, as may be seen in Fig. 12. Plate I. where the pencils which proceed from O and B are refracted inwards, and seem to come from the point i and m.

Fig. 8. Plate I. may, perhaps give the reader a still clearer view, why a convex lens increases the angle of vision. Without a lens, as F G, the eye at A would see the dart B C under the angle b A c; but the rays B F and C G from the extremities of the dart in passing through the lens, are refracted to the eye in the directions f A and g A, which causes the dart to be seen under the much larger angle D A E (the same as the angle f A g.) And therefore the dart B C will appear so much magnified, as to extend in length from D to E.

The object, when thus seen distinctly, by means of a small lens, appears to be magnified nearly in the proportion which the focal distance of the glass bears to the distance of the objects, when viewed by the naked eye.

To explain this further, place the eye close to the glass, that as much of the object may be seen at one view as is possible; then remove the object to and fro, till it appear perfectly distinct, and well defined; now remove the lens, and substitute in its place a thin plate, with a very small hole in it, and the object will appear as distinct, and as much magnified, as with the lens, though not quite so bright; and it appears as much more magnified in this case, than it does when viewed with the naked eye, as the distance of the object from the hole, or lens, is less than the distance at which it may be seen distinctly with the naked eye.

From hence we see, that the whole effect of the lens is to render the object distinct, which it does by assisting the eye to increase the refraction of the rays in each pencil; and that the apparent magnitude is entirely owing to the object being seen so much nearer the eye than it could be viewed without it.

Single microscopes magnify the diameter of the object,[26] as we have already shewn, in the proportion of the focal distance (to the limits of distinct vision with the naked eye) to eight inches. For example, if the semi-diameter of a lens, equally convex on both sides, be half an inch, which is also equal to its focal distance, we shall have as ¹⁄₂ is to 8, so is 1 to 16; that is, the diameter of the object in the proportion of sixteen to one. 2. As the distance of eight inches is always the same, it follows, that by how much the focal distance is smaller, there will be a greater difference between it and the eight inches; and consequently, the diameter of the object will be so much the more magnified, in proportion as the lenses are segments of smaller spheres. 3. If the object be placed in the focus of a glass globule or sphere, and the eye be behind it in the focus, the object will be seen distinct in an erect situation, and magnified as to its diameter, in the proportion of ³⁄₄ of the diameter of the globule to eight inches; thus suppose the diameter of the sphere to be ¹⁄₁₀ of an inch, then ³⁄₄ of this will be equal to ³⁄₄₀; consequently, the real diameter of the object to the apparent one, as ³⁄₄₀ to 8, or as 3 to 320, or as 1 to 106 nearly.

OF THE DOUBLE OR COMPOUND MICROSCOPE.

In the compound microscope, the image is viewed instead of the object, which image is magnified by a single lens, as the object is in a single microscope. It consists of an object lens N L, Fig. 5. Plate I. and an eye glass F G. The object B O is placed a little further from the lens than its principal focal distance, so that the pencils of rays proceeding from the different points of the object through the lens, may converge to their respective foci, and form an inverted image of the object at Q P; which image is viewed by the eye through the eye glass F G, which is so placed, that the image may be in its focus on one side, and the eye at the same distance on the other. The rays of each pencil will be parallel, after passing out of the glass, till they reach the eye at E, where they will begin to converge by the refractive powers of the humours; and after having crossed each other in the pupil, and passed through the crystalline and vitreous humours, they will be collected in points on the retina, and form a large inverted image thereon.

It will be easy, from what has been already explained, to understand the reason of the magnifying power of a compound microscope. The object is magnified upon two accounts; first, because if we viewed the image with the naked eye, it would appear as much larger than the object, as the image is really larger than it, or as the distance f R is greater than the distance f b; and secondly, because this picture is again magnified by the eye glass, upon the principle explained in the foregoing article on vision, by single microscopes.

But it is to be noted, that the image formed in the focus of a lens, as is the case in the compound microscope, differs from the real object in a very essential particular; that is to say, the light being emitted from the object in every direction, renders it visible to an eye placed in any position; but the points of the image formed by a lens, emitting no more than a small conical body of rays, which arrives from the glass, can be visible only when the eye is situate within its confine. Thus, the pencil, which emanates from o in the object, and is converged by the lens to D, proceeds afterwards diverging towards H, and, therefore, never arrives at the lens F G, nor enters the eye at E. But the pencils which proceed from the points o and b, will be received on the lens F G, and by it carried parallel to the eye; consequently, the correspondent points of the image Q P will be visible; and those which are situate farther out towards H and I, will not be seen. This quantity of the image Q P, or visible area, is called the field of view.

Hence it appears, that if the image be large, a very small part of it will be visible; because the pencils of rays will for the most part fall without the eye glass F G. And it is likewise plain, that a remedy which would cause the pencils, which proceed from the extremes B and O of the object, to arrive at the eye, will render a greater part of it visible: or, in other words, enlarge the field of view. This is effected by the interposition of a broad lens D E, Fig. 5, of a proper curvature, at a small distance from the focal image. For, by those means, the pencil D N, which would otherwise have proceeded towards H, is refracted to the eye, as delineated in the figure, and the mind conceives from thence the existence of a radiant point at Q, from which the rays last proceeded. In like manner, and by a parity of reason, the other extreme of the image is seen at P, and the intermediate points are also rendered visible. On these considerations it is, that compound microscopes are usually made to consist of an object lens N L, by which the image is formed, enlarged, and inverted; an amplifying lens D E, by which the field of view is enlarged, and an eye glass or lens, by which the eye is allowed to approach very near, and consequently to view the image under a very great angle of apparent magnitude. It is now customary to combine two or more lenses together at the eye glass, in the manner of Eustachio Divinis and M. Joblot; by which means the aberration of light from the figure is in some measure corrected, and the apparent field increased.

OF THE SOLAR MICROSCOPE.

In this instrument, the image of the object is refracted upon a screen in a darkened room. It may be considered under two distinct heads: 1st, the mirror and lens, which are intended to reflect and transmit the light of the sun upon the object; and 2dly, that part which constitutes the microscope, or which produces the magnified image of the object, Fig. 10. Plate I. Let N O represent the side of a darkened chamber, G H a small convex lens, fixed opposite to a perforation in the side N O, A B a plane mirror or looking glass, placed without the room to reflect the solar rays on the lens C D, by which they are converged and concentrated on the object fixed at E F.

2. The object being thus illuminated, the ray which proceeds from E will be converged by the lens G H to a focus K, on the screen L M; and the ray which comes from F will be converged to I, and the intermediate points will be delineated between I and K; thus forming a picture, which will be as much larger than the object, in proportion as the distance of the screen exceeds that of the image from the object; a small object, such as a mite, &c. may be thus magnified to eight or ten feet in diameter.

From what has been said, it appears plainly, the advantages we gain by microscopes are derived, first, from their magnifying power, by which the eye is enabled to view more distinctly the parts of minute objects: secondly, that by their assistance, more light is thrown into the pupil of the eye, than is done without them. The advantages procured by the magnifying power, would be exceedingly circumscribed, if they were not accompanied by the latter: for if the same quantity of light be diffused over a much larger surface, its force is proportionably diminished; and therefore the object, though magnified, will be dark and obscure. Thus, suppose the diameter of the object to be enlarged ten times, and consequently the surface one-hundred times, yet, if the focal distance of the glass were eight inches, provided this were possible, and its diameter only about the size of the pupil of the eye, the object would appear one-hundred times more obscure when viewed through the glass, than when it was seen by the naked eye; and this even on the supposition that the glass transmitted all the light which fell upon it, which no glass can do. But if the glass were only four inches focal distance, and its diameter remained as before, the inconvenience would be vastly diminished, because the glass could be placed twice as near the object as before, and would consequently receive four times as many rays as in the former case, and we should, therefore, see it much brighter than before. By going on thus, diminishing the focal distance of the glass, and keeping its diameter as large as possible, we shall perceive the object proportionably magnified, and yet remain bright and distinct. Though this is the case in theory, yet there is a limit in optical instruments, which is soon arrived at, but which cannot be passed. This arises from the following circumstances.[27]