In The Golden Pince-Nez, one of the last Sherlock Holmes stories, I noticed:
Even the news brought back by Hopkins that he had found the children and that they had undoubtedly seen a woman exactly corresponding with Holmes’s description, and wearing either spectacles or eye-glasses, failed to rouse any sign of keen interest.
Did one or the other specifically meant pince-nez back back in the days where people actually wore pince-nez? I can’t find any evidence that these were ever anything but synonyms though, so maybe Conan Doyle just got it wrong.
My Question: In Victorian times was there a difference between spectacles and eyeglasses?
ChatGPT
Reply: In Victorian times, the terms “spectacles” and “eyeglasses” were used somewhat interchangeably, but they could carry slightly different connotations depending on context.
Spectacles: This term generally referred to a pair of lenses set in a frame that rested on the nose and ears. Spectacles were designed to be worn regularly and were the common term for vision correction devices.
Eyeglasses: This term could also refer to vision correction devices, but it sometimes carried a more specific meaning. Eyeglasses could refer to the lenses mounted in a frame but might also include single-lens devices like monocles or pince-nez, which were popular during the Victorian era.
In essence, while both terms referred to vision correction devices, “spectacles” was more universally understood as a pair of lenses in a frame, while “eyeglasses” could encompass a broader range of optical aids, including single-lens devices.
Definitely/ Around 1290 when the tech to do something with glass was mastered - the magnifying glass led to things you could frames around and see better.
That of course led to folks like Kepler and Galileo making longer focus lenses and looking at the moon and the moons of Jupiter.
Ben Franklin is credited with bifocals, though he must have had some help my a lens and glass maker.
For me, right now I need tri-focals as there are many things I can see in the distance, many things but not all I can see on my computer and if I go shopping I’m often tipping my glasses to read prices and such. I know they make a kind that curve all the way.
According to this website eyeglasses with temples or sidearms entered popular use in the early 1700s. Eyepads were generally not included and of course the lightweight plastic lenses of today were not in use. That doesn’t sound comfortable for extended use, so it’s not surprising that spectacles without sidearms and lorngettes (eyeglasses attached to a stick) were also popular.
From the quote in the OP, a detailed description is being made of the person of interest, so I interpret it to mean that the witnesses weren’t clear about the exact type of eyewear in use. I hypothesize that spectacle was the older and more general term and that eyeglasses implied sidearms.
Each of a pair of lenses for correcting or assisting defective eyesight, together with a frame or mounting which enables them to be kept in place in front of the eyes. Usually in plural: glasses, spectacles (frequently in pair of eyeglasses). Chiefly North American in later use.
Formerly used esp. of a pair of such lenses designed to be held in the hand or kept in position by a spring on the nose, without the additional support of arms and earpieces; but still less common, as a term for such items however constructed, than glasses or spectacles.
Earliest quotation is 1797, although there’s one from 1593 which is notated “may refer to some kind of eye protection, rather than something worn to assist the eyesight”. Unfortunately it doesn’t provide any dates for what “formerly” refers to in the second paragraph.
Under spectacles it has:
A device for assisting defective eyesight, or for protecting the eyes from dust, light, etc., consisting of two glass lenses set in a frame which is supported on the nose, and kept in place by side-pieces passing over the ears. Usually in plural.
Earliest quotation is c1430.
So what I take from this it seems that “spectacles” is the older term but refers specifically to the modern type with sidearms, while “eyeglasses” covers a wider range of types. However it’s not entirely clear to me that this is the correct conclusion.
Too soon for snark? A spectacle is “that guy/woman” at the bar thinking they are special in onw way or another. Eyeglasses are what I need to read the menu (even in bright light) once they calm down or are tossed out.
From Life with Father (1935): the narrator remembers having to borrow his violin teacher’s glasses:
It would have been safer if they had been spectacles: but no, they were pince-nez; and I had to learn to balance them across my nose as well as I could.
[Moderating]
Posts that consist entirely of chatbot output (or, equivalently, entirely other than a mere attribution) are not generally productive, just like posts consisting entirely of a Google results listing. If a questioner wanted a chatbot answer, they could have already gotten it themself. Please do not do this in the future.
Looking at the New York Times’ archives, eyeglasses were used in a mostly neutral way in 1860 and 1862 (though the earlier reference was to a woman wearing eyeglasses, with the possible implication that she was a feminist). The first 2 references to spectacles (1855 and 1856) had a more humorous tinge: one was, “Leather Spectacles Wanted at the Post Office”; another refers to someone who has lost his spectacles or hasn’t had them returned: “Makes brilliant speech and is frequently interrupted.” I sensed some jokes that I wouldn’t get.
So I conjecture spectacles was an old fashioned term in the US in 1860, though not as old fashioned as it is now.
Here’s another 1860 use case, possibly with a humorous tinge. Fair use, bolding and wiki link added
JABEZ L.M. CURRY, of Alabama, sits near the Speaker, quietly absorbed in his newspaper, and only now and then looking up to see if the clouds are breaking, or any other indication that the torrent of small rain-talk will cease. Mr. CURRY is a very striking man, and your correspondent regrets that he came just one day too late to hear the famous speech by him, made early in the session, which still rings in the ears of Congress. He is rather tall, exceedingly well built and graceful, with very thick and well pomaded dark hair, combed straight back from the forehead without partition; a broad and acute brow, shading dark eyes full of electricity and penetration; a sharp gimlet-pattern of nose, pushing its way into all proper subjects; a long upper lip, resting on a strong and well-shaped mouth; small ears, a pale complexion, gold spectacles jauntily worn, and a tuft of brown chin-beard, after the style of VANDYKE’s portraits. In conversation Mr. CURRY rapidly warms into measured earnestness, and this intellectual heat seems to act on him like the yelk of an egg on coffee-grounds – clearing the mental decoction and giving it a sharper flavor. He is regarded as one of the rising lights in the Southern hemisphere – luna inter stellas minores; sharing this position to some extent with LUCIUS LAMAR, ROGER PRYOR, PORCHER MILES, and one or two others. He is conservative and far-seeing – a laborious man, working with tenacious purpose for position, and pretty certain to achieve it. The peculiar fashion of wearing his hair and the sharpness of his features give him at a distance a certain bird-like air, which may possibly be assumed to attract attention – though such a design would be hardly worthy of his actual acquirements. With a head so well filled inside, he could afford to neglect any peculiarity in its external decorations.
Picture from another source. These spectacles may be different than the ones described by the 1860 NYT reporter.
Great stuff, thanks! It’s amazing to get answers from two Shakespeare plays (and a titan)! The chatbot answer is also good, but seems to think pince-nez are single-lensed, which isn’t true. I may be parsing that wrong though.
I guess the distinction that Conan Doyle was going for was, in fact, whether there were sidearms or not. That is, the children weren’t sure the woman they saw had glasses with sidearms/temples or a pince-nez. (Sidearms and temples are both new words for me, at least in this sense, so that’s cool.) Based on the various references here and the ones I’ve found, I’m not completely sure which word meant what, but it’s possible the distinction was always muddy.
I also like the explanation that the heaviness of glasses back in the day led to the use of pince-nez, lorgnettes, and maybe monocles too. That never really made sense to me.
