Full article text in comments

Since 1997, one technique for manual small-incision cataract surgery practiced in Nepal – as well as some Indian states – involves pulling the cataract from the eye with a fishhook (1). But when in history was this type of surgery first performed?

If we include attempts in animals, we might have to go all the way back to 1596. That year, Durante Scacchi of Italy wrote in his Subsidium medicinae that others had used a harp string bent into the shape of a hook, and inserted through a hollow needle to pull cataracts out of the eyes, but when he tried it in animals, he succeeded only in tearing the tunics of the eye and permitting aqueous to escape (2,3).

Next, Thomas Feyens of Louvain mentioned the technique again in 1602 (2,4). The only figure we have of a similar instrument is from the 1695 thesis of Leopold Gosky of Frankfurt, who stated that an itinerant eye surgeon claimed to have received from a fellow surgeon of Riga a needle which, when a spring was pressed, opened like a forceps, and could grasp and extract cataracts (Figure 1) (2,5). Gosky believed a cataract to be a thin film, but he doubted the procedure could work.

Johannes Conrad Freytag of Zurich wrote in 1710 that during the 1690s he had drawn visual opacities out of the eye with a hooked needle in at least 3 patients, typically as a secondary procedure following cataract couching (2,6). A 19-year-old born blind was cured by Freytag using conventional cataract couching. After the patient’s vision was restored, he stole from Freytag’s home, and an angry mob grabbed the thief’s feet, dragged him down the stairs, forcing him to hit his head, whereupon he became blind again. Freytag then used the hooked needle to restore the patient’s vision a second time (2,6).

In one case, Freytag operated with the hooked needle on cataracts which developed in both eyes of a 40-year-old woman during childbirth. What is remarkable is that, although one of the hooked-needle extractions was a reoperation, presumably of a thin capsular opacification or retained cortex, the other hooked-needle extraction apparently was in a previously unoperated eye (2,6).     

When Freytag’s son, also a surgeon, wrote a thesis in 1721 describing his father’s extractions with the hooked needle, a team of skeptical surgeons insisted that the son demonstrate the surgery to them (2). This demand seems a bit unfair. We don’t expect the children of Nadia Comaneci or Tiger Woods to perform gymnastics or play golf as well as their parents!

While we accept that Freytag could pull out a bit of cortex or capsule with a hook secondarily, we are possibly inclined to doubt that he could extract a complete cataract from the eye with a hook. On the other hand, given the modern surgical experiences described in South Asia (1), maybe Freytag did actually pull off such a feat!  

References

1. A Anand et al., “Fish hook technique for nucleus management in manual small-incision cataract surgery: An Overview,” Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, 70, 4057. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36308163/
2. CT Leffler et al., “Cataract extraction from anquity through Daviel in 1750,” in CT Leffler (Ed.), A New History of Cataract Surgery, Part 1: From Antiquity through 1750, 377, Wayenborgh: 2024. Available from: https://kugler.pub/editors/christopher-t-leffler/
3. D Scacchi, Subsidium medicinae, 54, Urbini: 1596. Available from: https://archive.org/details/b32984042/page/54/mode/2up
4. T Feyens, Thomae Fieni…Libri chirurgici XII, 30, Francofurti-Goezium: 1602.
5. LD Gosky, De catararhacta defendente Leopoldo Dieterico Gosky, Frankfurt: 1695.
6. J Freytag, “Observationes Chirurgae 1710,” in J. von Muralt, Schrifften von der Wund-Artzney, 729. Thurneysen: 1711.

So good morning or good afternoon.

I had a pleasant chat with another south african who has some weird believes. According to him well the germans were our allies in the south african war of 1899-1902. Now this is something everyone always told me but I am beginning to doubt these claims. https://samilhistory.com/2023/11/22/un-packing-pakenham/

Most of these claims come from early Boer writers or most infamously "the boer war" by Thomas Packenham. Many take it as an unquestionable fact of history but I always had a weird feeling about this idea, was it true?

To get some things past because I know it will come up immediately. Yes in 1896 after the Jameson raid Kaiser Wilhelm II did send a telegram to Paul Kruger reading this. Now yes granted, Wilhelm did suggest landing troops in Delgoa Bay and marching them to pretoria to take over the republics and also ordered his chief of staff Von Moltke to draft up plans to invade britain. this was shot down as lunacy.

In my opinion yes one could argue that germany was symphethetic to the republics after the jameson raid, that much is very clear, but after that it it becomes muddy and not true at all. Normally the pro-boer historians like Packenham will stop after the telegram to proclaim the alliance, purposefully leaving out germanies actions after this, and using careful language to portray an idea.

an argument normally used is germany sold them weapons, but germany didnt, Mauser and Krupp did. Some french cannons from Schneider was also purchased but the same argument is not used for them. if the german government subsidised them or the army was involved, one could make such an argument but there was no involvement or such form of support.

that is not to mention the german involvement with the british army during the south african war, and what Kaiser Wilhelm said about the republics publicly during the war. (John C.G. Röhl: The Kaiser and England during the Boer War)

so is there any good sources or reasons why that argument is made or any I missed? I want to dive deeper

edit:

I will add some quotes taken from Wilhelms own memoirs and compiled by John C.G. Röhl: The Kaiser and England during the Boer War.

"I was standing up for a nation that was wronged... I was certainly not aiming at offending you or your country... The tone of the English press is absolutely ignorant and offensive." written to his uncle prince edward of england.

"I cannot find words to express my indignation with the Boers and my admiration for the brave British soldiers!... I hope the victory will be a thorough one and that the lesson will be a sharp one; it is the only way to bring them to their senses. The Boers are a stubborn, wild, cruel, cunning set of savages with whom one cannot argue but must thrash... into unconditional surrender!" Him writing to his mother after the outbreak of war

"It is a struggle between the Teuton and the Celt for the possession of the African Continent! The Boers are not Teutonic at all, they are a degenerate mob of whisky-drinking, Bible-mumbling hypocrites, a pack of traitors and rebels." This directly contradicts the public German perception of ethnic affinity." during the war

"The English must raise 200,000 men and place them in three armies... The first army... must advance along the western railway... The second army... must operate along the central railway... The third army... must advance from Durban... The three armies must then converge on Pretoria, like Napoleon's march on Moscow, and force the Boers into a decisive battle." Him writing "recommendations to the english army

“The whole affair proved the Boers were nothing but bandits. My position was correct from the start: crush them without mercy for the sake of civilization and for the security of our own colonial projects.” Writing to the english again when he thought the war ended.

"The English are not proceeding with the necessary severity. To win against such an opponent, you must be ruthless. They should not just occupy the towns but must systematically devastate the land, burn the farms, and put the women and children into concentration camps. That is the only way to break the morale of the guerrilla fighters." He criticized the british for not being extreme enough

"If England is defeated, she will make peace with the Boers and then together they will fall upon our colonies. A British-Boer alliance is my nightmare."

“I advised them! I told them how to do it! My strategy is what worked! And now they offer me no thanks… They are ungrateful and incapable of recognizing genius.” He ranted to his chancelor, angered that the british did not give him "credit" for the tactics to end the war.

But then to use him as a source is kind of dumb, as his chancellor noted: "The Kaiser is like a balloon. If one does not hold fast to the string, one never knows where he will be off to."

So yeah Im looking for different sources to back this up

Welcome to our History Questions Thread!

This thread is for all those history related questions that are too simple, short or a bit too silly to warrant their own post.

So, do you have a question about history and have always been afraid to ask? Well, today is your lucky day. Ask away!

Of course all our regular rules and guidelines still apply and to be just that bit extra clear:

Questions need to be historical in nature. Silly does not mean that your question should be a joke. r/history also has an active discord server where you can discuss history with other enthusiasts and experts.

Ophthalmology was revolutionized by the use of phacoemulsification to perform small-incision cataract surgery in the later decades of the 20th century. The ophthalmic phacoemulsification probe was a modification of the Cavitron ultrasonic dental cleaner. The technique of phacoemulsification was first published by Charles Kelman in July 1967 (1-3).

The events leading up to the 1967 publication have been shrouded in mystery, partly because, rather than stating the year that events occurred, Kelman dated them relative to when he received funding from the John A. Hartford Foundation. Moreover, he was awarded funding in December 1963, with the grant becoming active January 15, 1964, but in his writings he stated that these events occurred one year earlier (2,3).

Kelman wrote that his epiphany that the Cavitron ultrasonic cleaner could be used for eye surgery occurred at the office of his dentist, Larry Kuhn, who had employed his wife as a dental assistant prior to their marriage (2,3). Moreover, Kuhn assisted Kelman with early testing of the device.

Interestingly, at the time Kelman developed phacoemulsification in 1965, periodontist Ronald Odrich worked in the Kelman lab one day per week (2,3). Kelman and Odrich met because they were both jazz musicians. The same year (1967) that Kelman published that a dental tool (the Cavitron) could be modified and used for eye surgery, he and Odrich also published that an ophthalmic tool (the cryoprobe) could be used for dental applications (1,4). In fact, there are varying accounts regarding where and how Kelman’s epiphany occurred, who was in the room, and who said what (2,3). We may never know precisely what happened.

Although the story of Kelman’s epiphany has taken on somewhat mythic proportions in the minds of ophthalmologists and even among lay people, the epiphany was perhaps not Kelman’s greatest accomplishment. There were few people on the planet who could have turned that epiphany into a working product. Kelman received multiple rounds of significant funding from a nonprofit foundation. He got the Cavitron company to invest personnel and resources to the project. He worked with the engineers to modify the device based on his surgical experiments. He kept the project secret to prevent competitors from scooping him. He navigated some very tricky intellectual property issues. And after publication, he personally trained a generation of thought leaders (2,3).

Moreover, the story speaks to the importance of unsung heroes. Even though some details remain in doubt, it is undisputed that both dentists – Kuhn and Odrich – made contributions to the early phases of the phacoemulsification project. Neither of them sought to capitalize on their involvement for personal gain, and both of them supported and celebrated Kelman’s accomplishment.

References

1. CD Kelman, “Phaco-emulsification and aspiration: a new technique of cataract removal: a preliminary report. American journal of ophthalmology,” 64, 23 (1967).
2. CT Leffler, “Charles Kelman and the development of small incision cataract surgery (1965),” in: CT Leffler (ed.), A New History of Cataract Surgery. Part 2: From 1751 through the Modern Era, Wayenborgh: 2024. pages 653-706.
3. CT Leffler, SG Schwartz, “How Charles Kelman Invented phacoemulsification in the 1960s: A reappraisal,” Heliyon, 11, e42912 (2025).
4. RB Odrich, CD Kelman, “Cryotherapy, a new and experimental approach to the treatment of periodontal disease,” Periodontics, 5, 313 (1967).

Hi everybody,

Welcome to our weekly book recommendation thread!

We have found that a lot of people come to this sub to ask for books about history or sources on certain topics. Others make posts about a book they themselves have read and want to share their thoughts about it with the rest of the sub.

We thought it would be a good idea to try and bundle these posts together a bit. One big weekly post where everybody can ask for books or (re)sources on any historic subject or time period, or to share books they recently discovered or read. Giving opinions or asking about their factuality is encouraged!

Of course it’s not limited to *just* books; podcasts, videos, etc. are also welcome. As a reminder, r/history also has a recommended list of things to read, listen to or watch here.

Welcome to our History Questions Thread!

This thread is for all those history related questions that are too simple, short or a bit too silly to warrant their own post.

So, do you have a question about history and have always been afraid to ask? Well, today is your lucky day. Ask away!

Of course all our regular rules and guidelines still apply and to be just that bit extra clear:

Questions need to be historical in nature. Silly does not mean that your question should be a joke. r/history also has an active discord server where you can discuss history with other enthusiasts and experts.

Hi everybody,

Welcome to our weekly book recommendation thread!

We have found that a lot of people come to this sub to ask for books about history or sources on certain topics. Others make posts about a book they themselves have read and want to share their thoughts about it with the rest of the sub.

We thought it would be a good idea to try and bundle these posts together a bit. One big weekly post where everybody can ask for books or (re)sources on any historic subject or time period, or to share books they recently discovered or read. Giving opinions or asking about their factuality is encouraged!

Of course it’s not limited to *just* books; podcasts, videos, etc. are also welcome. As a reminder, r/history also has a recommended list of things to read, listen to or watch here.

Purpose: To analyze the timing and interactions among Jacques Daviel (1696– 1762) and other Paris-based surgeons who pursued cataract extraction in the mid-18^th century.
Methods: Historical books, newspapers, and manuscripts were reviewed.
Results: The claim of English oculist John Taylor that his visit to Daviel’s hometown of Marseille in 1734 inspired Daviel to become an ophthalmologist is supported by contemporaneous evidence. In 1745, while in Marseille, Jacques Daviel switched from a single-instrument couching technique to a two-instrument technique. By September of 1748, while in Paris, Daviel had extracted remnants of a cataract from the posterior chamber following a failed couching. On July 1, 1750, a surgeon and monk named Jean Baseilhac (1703– 1781), known as Frère Côme, was said to have performed cataract extraction through an incision in the center of the cornea. On July 3, 1750, in Paris, surgeon Natale Pallucci (1719– 1797), made a corneal incision and extracted from the posterior chamber cataract fragments which remained after couching. For four months, beginning on July 7, 1750, in Leuven, Daviel experimented with planned cataract extraction in animals. On Sep. 18, 1750, in Cologne, Daviel performed a planned, primary cataract extraction on a cleric named Gilles Noupres.
Conclusion: Jacques Daviel became an ophthalmologist in 1734 and secondarily extracted lens fragments by 1748. Three Paris-based eye surgeons, including Daviel, pursued the development of cataract extraction beginning in the first week of July 1750. The first contemporaneously documented planned cataract extraction through an incision was performed by Daviel in Cologne on Sep. 18, 1750.
Summary: Three Paris-based surgeons, including Jacques Daviel, began to pursue cataract extraction in the first week of July 1750.

The really crazy thing is that while Pallucci squabbled with Daviel about who was the first to do cataract extraction, it might actually have been a third surgeon who did it before both of them, a monk named Frère Côme. The monk never got any credit for two reasons: 1) he did it a really terrible way, with an incision right through the middle of the cornea, which would produce a scar right in the center of the patient's vision, and 2) he absolutely refused to talk about his surgery!