[ '38 ] 



to the other fide. Such are the diredions given by Sharp f, 

 Bcrtrandi §, and all fubfequent writers. 



Never was operation received with greater applaufe, or more 

 fpeedily and univerfally adopted for thirty years paft, than the 

 prefent. The avidity with which it was embraced proves but 

 too truly the difficulty and uncertainty of that by dcprefllon, and 

 the utility, and- 7itceJJity of the prefent memoire. For, notwithftiinding 

 all that has been faid in its favour, I am not afraid to affirm, 



THAT NEVER WAS OPERATION LESS ENTITLED TO PUBLIC 



ESTjiMAjTiON. This, declaration is not the refult of theory and, 

 fpeculation, but of found pradice. I have myfelf performed it 

 both with the fciffars as Daviel recommends, and with a knife of 

 my own invention, and have frequently fcen it performed by 

 others, and never with fuccefs adequate to expedations. For, 

 in the firfl: inftance, the femifedion of the cornea leaves a cica- 

 trice, by which nearly half of it becomes opaque, at leaft the rays 

 of light cannot diftindly pafs through it. But befides this defed, 

 unavoidable by the diredions given, there are other ftill more 

 alarming accidents to be apprehended from the very manner of 

 piercing the cornea. We fee La Faye recommends the needle to 

 proceed in a ftraight line from one fide to the other, without 

 fear of wounding the iris, which he tells you is flat. Warner 

 defires it to be ^2ii![td fuddenlj and refolutely j and fuch is too much 



f Pliilofoph. Tranfaftions for 1753. 



§ Traite des Operations de Chirurgie, p. 345. 



the 



