1826. ] On the Proper Use of the Eyes. 167 
of vision is ‘still: more clearly illustrated in the frequent trials for 
crim.:con.; in almost every one of which it appears that the complaining 
husband was incapable ‘of seeing what was immediately before his nose. 
In. fairness, however, it must be stated, that this species of blindness has 
‘by many philosophers been referred to the mental rather than ‘to: the 
human nature of the animal. Again, let me intreat the reader to ask 
himself what: he means by “ fine eyes.” He will probably answer, black 
eyes, blue eyes, hazel eyes, or more specifically Jane’s eyes, or Josephine’s 
eyes, or Nanny’s eyes. If he be poetical, he may say laughing eyes, 
sparkling eyes; «‘ the sleepy eye that speaks the melting soul;” the 
“eye like Mars to threaten and command;” or the “ poet's eye in a fine 
phrenzy rolling ;” in short, he may make fifty answers, and it will be fifty 
to one that he does not once say “good seeing eyes,” which would be 
the natural reply, if seeing were not a mere episode in the history of the 
organ. Of all the senses, sight is indeed confessedly the most imper- 
fect. The wisest men are often the dupes of appearances ; nay, the very 
formulary by which we express a doubt of reality, is by the term 
“apparently :” all which could never have happened if vision had been 
the end and object of nature in the fabrication of the eye. But 
this luxuriance of proof and instance is painting the lily and gilding 
refined gold; the evidence is perfectly irresistible. But perhaps, 
however, it will be said, if the eyes have not this use, what the d 1 
were they made for?—and that is a question which, I own it, has puzzled 
me very much. Not that I think a man is obliged to answer every 
impertinent question that indiscretion or fatuity may put. Besides, 
how: many objects are there in nature and art for which no use can 
be assigned 2. What is the use of the Pyramids of Egypt? or the 
columns in front of Carlton House? What is the use of a bishop’s wig ? 
or, if you be a dissenter you may add, of the bishop himself? What is 
the use of a bill in chancery? What is the use of thick ancles? Of 
Sheffield-ware plateaus? Or of gentlemen ushers ? Why, in short, 
may not the eye be a surplus eye in nature, as well asa sixth finger, or a 
horn on the forehead? If every thing useless were taken away, what 
would become of the polished Corinthian capital of society, with all its 
pensions, places, and pluralities? What would become of Waterloo 
Bridge? What of the standing armies of Europe? What of the stage 
doors? or, to come nearer to our subject, did ever anatomist discover 
the use of the male breast, or of the thuroid gland? And, if nature has 
made these organs without an obvious use, why may she not have done 
the same with the eye? This, I confess, is a mystery I never could 
explain to my entire satisfaction; and I am strongly inclined to think 
that the eye is an organ which does not discharge the same function in 
all men alike, but varies in its uses, according to the temperament, 
disposition, and social position of the individual. Thus, for imstance, 
I have found that barristers make much use of the eye in terrifying 
witnesses into perjury ; especially when they happen to be the “least 
taste in life” askew, or to be armed with huge bushy brows. Among 
the lower order of evangelical divines, the eye is employed as a forcing 
pump to raise the stagnant waters of the soul. Some preachers use them 
as guide posts pointing by the elevation of their whites the road to. 
heaven ; while many of their pretty, pouting auditors point with their 
eyes, as Mr. Moore sings, ‘the other way, the other way.” One use 
which is made of the eyes (chiefly by Irish gentlemen), is in butchering 
