The next section covers The View of the Eye on page 36.

The next section goes into a short description of the image of the eye as provider from a profile of a human skull which includes some of the muscles and nerves associated with the eyeball. It does not include a detailed description were drawing of the actual eyeball other than its contractual dry within that cross-section including the rest of the head.

View of the Eye — We can likewise view the human eye as it lays in position in its bony socket, and wonder at our creators munificence and benevolence in providing us with such a delicate instrument of vision with which to light our way about in the world, and view the magnificent beauties of nature that surround us on every hand. Here, too, we observe the teeth, those essential prerequisites to personal beauty, and.able adjuncts to the powers of articulation and speech, protruding through the gums, their roots being visible above and below the gums; and the lower set we see the dental nerve distributing its nervous supply to their individual and collective roots.

There are a couple things that stand out in this one simple paragraph.

1. This book is written essentially by a collection of editors, that seemed to have taken information from many other oaks and sources over the years. As the book was written initially in the 1860s and updated throughout the next 50 odd years it’s possible that copyrights and copying or even citing sources were not as necessary at the time. So it’s difficult to tell who the original source of any of this information might have been other than the collective thank you at the beginning of the book. With all that said, it strikes me as odd that the editors would stray from the stated topic of “the eye” and move into a short discussion of the teeth within the same paragraph.
2. Often the book has already mentioned references to God, as the book was written at the turn of the century closing out the Victorian era, I assume that they are referring to the Christian God. I actually have few doubts about that. However it is illustrative of the fact that this particular book was written in a way that was not secular in nature. I suspect we will see many additional references throughout the book as time goes on and I’m withholding further views on the subject until I have a more complete picture of what the true views of the “editors” might be as they manifest in the edited writing.