In a preceding chapter I have explained a remarkable fallacy of sight which takes place in the stereoscope when we interchange the binocular pictures, that is, when we place the right-eye picture on the left side, and the left-eye picture on the right side. The objects in the foreground of the picture are thus thrown into the background, and, vice versa, the same effect, as we have seen, takes place when we unite the binocular pictures, in their usual position, by the ocular stereoscope, that is, by converging the optic axes to a point between the eye and the pictures. In both these cases the objects are only the plane representations of solid bodies, and the change which is produced by their union is not in their form but in their position. In certain cases, however, when the object is of some magnitude in the picture, the form is also changed in consequence of the inverse position of its parts. That is, the drawings of objects that are naturally convex will appear concave, and those which are naturally concave will appear convex.

In these phenomena there is no mental illusion in their production. The two similar points in each picture, if they are nearer to one another than other two similar points, must, in conformity with the laws of vision, appear nearer the eye when combined in the common stereoscope. When this change of place and form does not appear, as in the case of the human figure, previously explained, it is by a mental illusion that the law of vision is controlled.

The phenomena which we are about to describe are, in several respects, different from those to which we have referred. They are seen in monocular as well as in binocular vision, and they are produced in all cases under a mental illusion, arising either from causes over which we have no control, or voluntarily created and maintained by the observer. The first notice of this class of optical illusion was given by Aguilonius in his work on optics, to which we have already had occasion to refer.[69] After proving that convex and concave surfaces appear plane when seen at a considerable distance, he shews that the same surfaces, when seen at a moderate distance, frequently appear what he calls converse, that is, the concave convex, and the convex concave. This conversion of forms, he says, is often seen in the globes or balls which are fixed on the walls of fortifications, and he ascribes the phenomena to the circumstance of the mind being imposed upon from not knowing in what direction the light falls upon the body. He states that a concavity differs from a convexity only in this respect, that if the shadow is on the same side as that from which the light comes it is a concavity, and if it is on the opposite side, it is a convexity. Aguilonius observes also, that in pictures imitating nature, a similar mistake is committed as to the form of surfaces. He supposes that a circle is drawn upon a table and shaded on one side so as to represent a convex or a concave surface. When this shaded circle is seen at a great distance, it appears a plane surface, notwithstanding the shadow on one side of it; but when we view it at a short distance, and suppose the light to come from the same side of it as the part not in shadow, the plane circle will appear to be a convexity, and if we suppose the light to come from the same side as the shaded part, the circle will appear to be a concavity.

More than half a century after the time of Aguilonius, a member of the Royal Society of London, at one of the meetings of that body, when looking at a guinea through a compound microscope which inverted the object, was surprised to see the head upon the coin depressed, while other members were not subject to this illusion.

Dr. Philip Gmelin[70] of Wurtemberg, having learned from a friend, that when a common seal is viewed through a compound microscope, the depressed part of the seal appeared elevated, and the elevated part depressed, obtained the same result, and found, as Aguilonius did, that the effect was owing to the inversion of the shadow by the microscope. One person often saw the phenomena and another did not, and no effect was produced when a raised object was so placed between two windows as to be illuminated on all sides.

In 1780 Mr. Rittenhouse, an American writer, repeated these experiments with an inverting eye-tube, consisting of two lenses placed at a distance greater than the sum of their focal lengths, and he found that when a reflected light was thrown on a cavity, in a direction opposite to that of the light which came from his window, the cavity was raised into an elevation by looking through a tube without any lens. In this experiment the shadow was inverted, just as if he had looked through his inverting eye-tube.

In studying this subject I observed a number of singular phenomena, which I have described in my Letters on Natural Magic,[71] but as they were not seen by binocular vision I shall mention only some of the more important facts. If we take one of the intaglio moulds used by the late Mr. Henning for his bas-reliefs, and direct the eye to it steadily, without noticing surrounding objects, we may distinctly see it as a bas-relief. After a little practice I have succeeded in raising a complete hollow mask of the human face, the size of life, into a projecting head. This result is very surprising to those who succeed in the experiment, and it will no doubt be regarded by the sculptor who can use it as an auxiliary in his art.

Till within the last few years, no phenomenon of this kind, either as seen with one or with two eyes, had been noticed by the casual observer. Philosophers alone had been subject to the illusion, or had subjected others to its influence. The following case, however, which occurred to Lady Georgiana Wolff, possesses much interest, as it could not possibly have been produced by any voluntary effort. “Lady Georgiana,” says Dr. Joseph Wolff in his Journal, “observed a curious optical deception in the sand, about the middle of the day, when the sun was strong: all the foot-prints, and other marks that are indented in the sand, had the appearance of being raised out of it. At these times there was such a glare, that it was unpleasant for the eye.”[72] Having no doubt of the correctness of this observation, I have often endeavoured, though in vain, to witness so remarkable a phenomenon. In walking, however, in the month of March last, with a friend on the beach at St. Andrews, the phenomenon presented itself, at the same instant, to myself and to a lady who was unacquainted with this class of illusions. The impressions of the feet of men and of horses were distinctly raised out of the sand. In a short time they resumed their hollow form, but at different places the phenomenon again presented itself, sometimes to myself, sometimes to the lady, and sometimes to both of us simultaneously. The sun was near the horizon on our left hand, and the white surf of the sea was on our right, strongly reflecting the solar rays. It is very probable that the illusion arose from our considering the light as coming from the white surf, in which case the shadows in the hollow foot-prints were such as could only be produced by foot-prints raised from the sand, as if they were in relief. It is possible that, when the phenomenon was observed by Lady Georgiana Wolff, there may have been some source of direct or reflected light opposite to the sun, or some unusual brightness of the clouds, if there were any in that quarter, which gave rise to the illusion.

When these illusions, whether monocular or binocular, are produced by an inversion of the shadow, either real or supposed, they are instantly dissipated by holding a pin in the field of view, so as to indicate by its shadow the real place of the illuminating body. The figure will appear raised or depressed, according to the knowledge which we obtain of the source of light, by introducing or withdrawing the pin. When the inversion is produced by the eye-piece of a telescope, or a compound microscope, in which the field of view is necessarily small, we cannot see the illuminating body and the convex or concave object (the cameo or intaglio) at the same time; but if we use a small inverting telescope, 1½ or 2 inches long, such as that shewn at MN, Fig. 36, we obtain a large field of view, and may see at the same time the object and a candle placed beside it. In this case the illusion will take place according as the candle is seen beside the object or withdrawn.

If the object is a white tea-cup, or bowl, however large, and if it is illuminated from behind the observer, the reflected image of the window will be in the concave bottom of the tea-cup, and it will not rise into a convexity if the illumination from surrounding objects is uniform; but if the observer moves a little to one side, so that the reflected image of the window passes from the centre of the cup, then the cup will rise into a convexity, when seen through the inverting telescope, in consequence of the position of the luminous image, which could occupy its place only upon a convex surface. If the concave body were cut out of a piece of chalk, or pure unpolished marble, it would appear neither convex nor concave, but flat.

Very singular illusions take place, both with one and two eyes, when the object, whether concave or convex, is a hollow or an elevation in or upon a limited or extended surface—that is, whether the surface occupies the whole visible field, or only a part of it. If we view, through the inverting telescope or eye-piece, a dimple or a hemispherical cavity in a broad piece of wood laid horizontally on the table, and illuminated by quaquaversus light, like that of the sky, it will instantly rise into an elevation, the end of the telescope or eye-piece resting on the surface of the wood. The change of form is, therefore, not produced by the inversion of the shadow, but by another cause. The surface in which the cavity is made is obviously inverted as well as the cavity, that is, it now looks downward in place of upward; but it does not appear so to the observer leaning upon the table, and resting the end of his eye-piece upon the wooden surface in which the cavity is made. The surface seems to him to remain where it was, and still to look upwards, in place of looking downwards. If the observer strikes the wooden surface with the end of the eye-piece, this conviction is strengthened, and he believes that it is the lower edge of the field of view, or object-glass, that strikes the apparent wooden surface or rests upon it, whereas the wooden surface has been inverted, and optically separated from the lower edge of the object-glass.

In order to make this plainer, place a pen upon a sheet of paper with the quill end nearest you, and view it through the inverting telescope: The quill end will appear farthest from you, and the paper will not appear inverted. In like manner, the letters on a printed page are inverted, the top of each letter being nearest the observer, while the paper seems to retain its usual place. Now in both these cases the paper is inverted as well as the quill and the letters, and in reality the image of the quill and of the pen, and of the lower end of the letters, is nearest the observer. Let us next place a tea-cup on its side upon the table, with its concavity towards the observer, and view it through the inverting telescope. It will rise into a convexity, the nearer margin of the cup appearing farther off than the bottom. If we place a short pen within the cup, measuring as it were its depth, and having its quill end nearest the observer, the pen will be inverted, in correspondence with the conversion of the cup into a convexity, the quill end appearing more remote, like the margin of the cup which it touches, and the feather end next the eye like the summit of the convex cup on which it rests.

In these experiments, the conversion of the concavity into a convexity depends on two separate illusions, one of which springs from the other. The first illusion is the erroneous conviction that the surface of the table is looking upwards as usual, whereas it is really inverted; and the second illusion, which arises from the first, is, that the nearest point of the object appears farthest from the eye, whereas it is nearest to it. All these observations are equally applicable to the vision of convexities, and hence it follows, that the conversion of relief, caused by the use of an inverting eye-piece, is not produced directly by the inversion, but by an illusion arising from the inversion, in virtue of which we believe that the remotest side of the convexity is nearer our eye than the side next us.

In order to demonstrate the correctness of this explanation, let the hemispherical cavity be made in a stripe of wood, narrower than the field of the inverting telescope with which it is viewed. It will then appear really inverted, and free from both the illusions which formerly took place. The thickness of the stripe of wood is now distinctly seen, and the inversion of the surface, which now looks downward, immediately recognised. The edge of the cavity now appears nearest the eye, as it really is, and the concavity, though inverted, still appears a concavity. The same effect is produced when a convexity is placed on a narrow stripe of wood.

Some curious phenomena take place when we view, at different degrees of obliquity, a hemispherical cavity raised into a convexity. At every degree of obliquity from 0° to 90°, that is, from a vertical to a horizontal view of it, the elliptical margin of the convexity will always be visible, which is impossible in a real convexity, and the elevated apex will gradually sink till the elliptical margin becomes a straight line, and the imaginary convexity completely levelled. The struggle between truth and error is here so singular, that while one part of the object has become concave, the other part retains its convexity!

In like manner, when a convexity is seen as a concavity, the concavity loses its true shape as it is viewed more and more obliquely, till its remote elliptical margin is encroached upon, or eclipsed, by the apex of the convexity; and towards an inclination of 90° the concavity disappears altogether, under circumstances analogous to those already described.

If in place of using an inverting telescope we invert the concavity, by looking at its inverted image in the focus of a convex lens, it will sometimes appear a convexity and sometimes not. In this form of the experiment the image of the concavity, and consequently its apparent depth, is greatly diminished, and therefore any trivial cause, such as a preconception of the mind, or an approximation to a shadow, or a touch of the concavity by the point of the finger, will either produce a conversion of form or dissipate the illusion when it is produced.

In the preceding Chapter we have supposed the convexity to be high and the concavity deep and circular, and we have supposed them also to be shadowless, or illuminated by a quaquaversus light, such as that of the sky in the open fields. This was done in order to get rid of all secondary causes which might interfere with and modify the normal cause, when the concavities are shallow, and the convexities low and have distinct shadows, or when the concavity, as in seals, has the shape of an animal or any body which we are accustomed to see in relief.

Let us now suppose that a strong shadow is thrown upon the concavity. In this case the normal experiment is much more perfect and satisfactory. The illusion is complete and invariable when the concavity is in or upon an extended surface, and it as invariably disappears, or rather is not produced, when it is in a narrow stripe.

In the secondary forms of the experiment, the inversion of the shadow becomes the principal cause of the illusion; but in order that the result may be invariable, or nearly so, the concavities must be shallow and the convexities but slightly raised. At great obliquities, however, this cause of the conversion of form ceases to produce the illusion, and in varying the inclination from 0° to 90° the cessation takes place sooner with deep than with shallow cavities. The reason of this is that the shadow of a concavity is very different at great obliquities from the shadow of a convexity. The shadow never can emerge out of a cavity so as to darken the surface in which the cavity is made, whereas the shadow of a convexity soon extends beyond the outline of its base, and finally throws a long stripe of darkness over the surface on which it rests. Hence it is impossible to mistake a convexity for a concavity when its shadow extends beyond its base.

When the concavity upon a seal is a horse, or any other animal, it will often rise into a convexity when seen through a single lens, which does not invert it; but the illusion disappears at great obliquities. In this case, the illusion is favoured or produced by two causes; the first is, that the form of the horse or other animal in relief is the one which the mind is most disposed to seize, and the second is, that we use only one eye, with which we cannot measure depths as well as with two. The illusion, however, still takes place when we employ a lens three or more inches wide, so as to permit the use of both eyes, but it is less certain, as the binocular vision enables us in some degree to keep in check the other causes of illusion.

The influence of these secondary causes is strikingly displayed in the following experiment. In the armorial bearings upon a seal, the shield is often more deeply cut than the surrounding parts. With binocular vision, the shallow parts rise into relief sooner than the shield, and continue so while the shield remains depressed; but if we shut one eye the shield then rises into relief like the rest. In these experiments with a single lens a slight variation in the position of the seal, or a slight change in the intensity or direction of the illumination, or particular reflexions from the interior of the stone, if it is transparent, will favour or oppose the illusion. In viewing the shield at the deepest portion with a single lens, a slight rotation of the seal round the wrist, backwards and forwards, will remove the illusion, in consequence of the eye perceiving that the change in the perspective is different from what it ought to be.

In my Letters on Natural Magic, I have described several cases of the conversion of form in which inverted vision is not employed. Hollows in mother-of-pearl and other semi-transparent bodies often rise into relief, in consequence of a quantity of light, occasioned by refraction, appearing on the side next the light, where there should have been a shadow in the case of a depression. Similar illusions take place in certain pieces of polished wood, calcedony, mother-of-pearl, and other shells, where the surface is perfectly plane. This arises from there being at that place a knot, or growth, or nodule, differing in transparency from the surrounding mass. The thin edge of the knot, &c., opposite the candle, is illuminated by refracted light, so that it takes the appearance of a concavity. From the same cause arises the appearance of dimples in certain plates of calcedony, which have received the name of hammered calcedony, or agate, from their having the look of being dimpled with a hammer. The surface on which these cavities are seen contains sections of small spherical formations of siliceous matter, which exhibit the same illusion as the cavities in wood. Mother-of-pearl presents similar phenomena, and so common are they in this substance that it is difficult to find a mother-of-pearl button or counter which seems to have its surface flat, although it is perfectly so when examined by the touch. Owing to the different refractions of the incident light by the different growths of the shell, cut in different directions by the artificial surface, like the annual growth of wood in a dressed plank, the surface of the mineral has necessarily an inequal and undulating appearance.

In viewing good photographic or well-painted miniature portraits in an erect and inverted position, and with or without a lens, considerable changes take place in the apparent relief. Under ordinary vision there is a certain amount of relief depending upon the excellence of the picture. If we invert the picture, by turning it upside down, the relief is perceptibly increased. If we view it when erect, with a lens of about an inch in focal length, the relief is still greater; but if we view it when inverted with the same lens the relief is very considerably diminished.

A very remarkable illusion, affecting the apparent position of the drawings of geometrical solids, was first observed by the late Professor Neckar, of Geneva, who communicated it to me personally in 1832.[73] “The rhomboid AX,” (Fig. 51,) he says, “is drawn so that the solid angle A should be seen nearest to the spectator, and the solid angle X the farthest from him, and that the face ACBD should be the foremost, while the face XDC is behind. But in looking repeatedly at the same figure, you will perceive that at times the apparent position of the rhomboid is so changed that the solid angle X will appear the nearest, and the solid angle A the farthest, and that the face ACDB will recede behind the face XDC, which will come forward,—which effect gives to the whole solid a quite contrary apparent inclination.” Professor Neckar observed this change “as well with one as with both eyes,” and he considered it as owing “to an involuntary change in the adjustment of the eye for obtaining distinct vision. And that whenever the point of distinct vision on the retina was directed to the angle A for instance, this angle, seen more distinctly than the other, was naturally supposed to be nearer and foremost, while the other angles, seen indistinctly, were supposed to be farther away and behind. The reverse took place when the point of distinct vision was brought to bear upon the angle X. What I have said of the solid angles (A and X) is equally true of the edges, those edges upon which the axis of the eye, or the central hole of the retina, are directed, will always appear forward; so that now it seems to me certain that this little, at first so puzzling, phenomenon depends upon the law of distinct vision.”

In consequence of completely misunderstanding Mr. Neckar’s explanation of this illusion, Mr. Wheatstone has pronounced it to be erroneous, but there can be no doubt of its correctness; and there are various experiments by which the principle may be illustrated. By hiding with the finger one of the solid angles, or making it indistinct, by a piece of dimmed glass, or throwing a slight shadow over it, the other will appear foremost till the obscuring cause is removed. The experiment may be still more satisfactorily made by holding above the rhomboid a piece of finely ground-glass, the ground side being farthest from the eye, and bringing one edge of it gradually down till it touches the point A, the other edge being kept at a distance from the paper. In this way all the lines diverging from A will become dimmer as they recede from A, and consequently A will appear the most forward point. A similar result will be obtained by putting a black spot upon A, which will have the effect of drawing our attention to A rather than to X.

From these experiments and observations, it will be seen that the conversion of form, excepting in the normal case, depends upon various causes, which are influential only under particular conditions, such as the depth of the hollow or the height of the relief, the distance of the object, the sharpness of vision, the use of one or both eyes, the inversion of the shadow, the nature of the object, and the means used by the mind itself to produce the illusion. In the normal case, where the cavity or convexity is shadowless, and upon an extended surface, and where inverted vision is used, the conversion depends solely on the illusion, which it is impossible to resist, that the side of the cavity or elevation next the eye is actually farthest from it, an illusion not produced by inversion, but by a false judgment respecting the position of the surface in which the cavity is made, or upon which it rests.