billmatt04
12-18-2006, 03:25 PM
I know this subject has been covered ad nauseum, but I came aross a reference to a soldier wearing spectacles in the field in the 1993 Historical Supply Catalogue , published by Camden House Publishing in Charlotte, VT and compiled by Alan Wellikoff. On page 184 he quotes a soldier of the 52nd Massachusetts Infantry who wrote home with glowing praise for his newly-issued Springfield rifle-musket.
The soldier writes that the "guns were issued to us the other day....Mine is behind me now, dark black - walnut stock, well oiled, so that the beauty of the wood is brought out, hollowed out at the base and smoothly fitted with steel....The spring of the lock, just stiff and just limber enough...barrel, long and glistening-bound into its bed by gleaming rings - long and straight and so bright that when I present arms, and bring it before my face, I can see the nose and spectacles and the heavy beard on lip and chin...."
I thought this was not only an interesting description of the soldier's weapon but also evidence that soldiers did wear spectacles while in the field. I know the arguments to the contrary, but I thought this would be an interesting bit of information to add to the discussion. It's a shame he does not include the soldier's name.
Best,
The soldier writes that the "guns were issued to us the other day....Mine is behind me now, dark black - walnut stock, well oiled, so that the beauty of the wood is brought out, hollowed out at the base and smoothly fitted with steel....The spring of the lock, just stiff and just limber enough...barrel, long and glistening-bound into its bed by gleaming rings - long and straight and so bright that when I present arms, and bring it before my face, I can see the nose and spectacles and the heavy beard on lip and chin...."
I thought this was not only an interesting description of the soldier's weapon but also evidence that soldiers did wear spectacles while in the field. I know the arguments to the contrary, but I thought this would be an interesting bit of information to add to the discussion. It's a shame he does not include the soldier's name.
Best,