The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals
by
Charles Darwin
Part 4 out of 6
JOY, when intense, leads to various purposeless movements--
to dancing about, clapping the hands, stamping, &c., and to loud laughter.
Laughter seems primarily to be the expression of mere joy or happiness.
We clearly see this in children at play, who are almost incessantly laughing.
With young persons past childhood, when they are in high spirits, there is
always much meaningless laughter. The laughter of the gods is described by
Homer as "the exuberance of their celestial joy after their daily banquet."
A man smiles--and smiling, as we shall see, graduates into laughter--
at meeting an old friend in the street, as he does at any trifling pleasure,
such as smelling a sweet perfume.[1] Laura Bridgman, from her blindness and
deafness, could not have acquired any expression through imitation, yet when
a letter from a beloved friend was communicated to her by gesture-language,
she "laughed and clapped her hands, and the colour mounted to her cheeks."
On other occasions she has been seen to stamp for joy.[2]
[1] Herbert Spencer, `Essays Scientific,' &c., 1858, p. 360.
Idiots and imbecile persons likewise afford good evidence that
laughter or smiling primarily expresses mere happiness or joy.
Dr. Crichton Browne, to whom, as on so many other occasions,
I am indebted for the results of his wide experience,
informs me that with idiots laughter is the most
prevalent and frequent of all the emotional expressions.
Many idiots are morose, passionate, restless, in a painful
state of mind, or utterly stolid, and these never laugh.
Others frequently laugh in a quite senseless manner.
Thus an idiot boy, incapable of speech, complained to Dr. Browne,
by the aid of signs, that another boy in the asylum had given
him a black eye; and this was accompanied by "explosions of
laughter and with his face covered with the broadest smiles."
There is another large class of idiots who are persistently
joyous and benign, and who are constantly laughing or smiling.[3]
Their countenances often exhibit a stereotyped smile;
their joyousness is increased, and they grin, chuckle, or giggle,
whenever food is placed before them, or when they are caressed,
are shown bright colours, or hear music. Some of them laugh more
than usual when they walk about, or attempt any muscular exertion.
The joyousness of most of these idiots cannot possibly
be associated, as Dr. Browne remarks, with any distinct ideas:
they simply feel pleasure, and express it by laughter or smiles.
With imbeciles rather higher in the scale, personal vanity
seems to be the commonest cause of laughter, and next to this,
pleasure arising from the approbation of their conduct.
[2] F. Lieber on the vocal sounds of L. Bridgman, `Smithsonian Contributions,'
1851, vol. ii. p. 6.
[3] See, also, Mr. Marshall, in Phil. Transact. 1864, p. 526.
With grown-up persons laughter is excited by causes considerably
different from those which suffice during childhood; but this remark
hardly applies to smiling. Laughter in this respect is analogous
with weeping, which with adults is almost confined to mental distress,
whilst with children it is excited by bodily pain or any suffering,
as well as by fear or rage. Many curious discussions have been
written on the causes of laughter with grown-up persons.
The subject is extremely complex. Something incongruous or unaccountable,
exciting surprise and some sense of superiority in the laugher,
who must be in a happy frame of mind, seems to be the commonest
cause.[4] The circumstances must not be of a momentous nature:
no poor man would laugh or smile on suddenly hearing that a large
fortune had been bequeathed to him. If the mind is strongly
excited by pleasurable feelings, and any little unexpected event
or thought occurs, then, as Mr. Herbert Spencer remarks,[5] "a large
amount of nervous energy, instead of being allowed to expend itself
in producing an equivalent amount of the new thoughts and emotion
which were nascent, is suddenly checked in its flow." . . . "The
excess must discharge itself in some other direction, and there
results an efflux through the motor nerves to various classes of
the muscles, producing the half-convulsive actions we term laughter."
An observation, bearing on this point, was made by a correspondent
during the recent siege of Paris, namely, that the German soldiers.
after strong excitement from exposure to extreme danger, were particularly
apt to burst out into loud laughter at the smallest joke.
So again when young children are just beginning to cry,
an unexpected event will sometimes suddenly turn their crying
into laughter, which apparently serves equally well to expend
their superfluous nervous energy.
[4] Mr. Bain (`The Emotions and the Will,' 1865, p. 247) has a long
and interesting discussion on the Ludicrous. The quotation above
given about the laughter of the gods is taken from this work.
See, also, Mandeville, `The Fable of the Bees,' vol. ii. p. 168.
[5] `The Physiology of Laughter,' Essays, Second Series, 1863, p. 114.
The imagination is sometimes said to be tickled by a ludicrous idea;
and this so-called tickling of the mind is curiously analogous with
that of the body. Every one knows how immoderately children laugh,
and how their whole bodies are convulsed when they are tickled.
The anthropoid apes, as we have seen, likewise utter a reiterated sound,
corresponding with our laughter, when they are tickled, especially under
the armpits. I touched with a bit of paper the sole of the foot of one
of my infants, when only seven days old, and it was suddenly jerked
away and the toes curled about, as in an older child. Such movements,
as well as laughter from being tickled, are manifestly reflex actions;
and this is likewise shown by the minute unstriped muscles, which serve
to erect the separate hairs on the body, contracting near a tickled
surface.[6] Yet laughter from a ludicrous idea, though involuntary,
cannot be called a strictly reflex action. In this case, and in that of
laughter from being tickled, the mind must be in a pleasurable condition;
a young child, if tickled by a strange man, would scream from fear.
The touch must be light, and an idea or event, to be ludicrous,
must not be of grave import. The parts of the body which are most easily
tickled are those which are not commonly touched, such as the armpits
or between the toes, or parts such as the soles of the feet, which are
habitually touched by a broad surface; but the surface on which we sit
offers a marked exception to this rule. According to Gratiolet,[7]
certain nerves are much more sensitive to tickling than others.
From the fact that a child can hardly tickle itself, or in a much less
degree than when tickled by another person, it seems that the precise point
to be touched must not be known; so with the mind, something unexpected--
a novel or incongruous idea which breaks through an habitual train of thought--
appears to he a strong element in the ludicrous.
[6] J. Lister in `Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science,'
1853, vol. 1. p. 266.
The sound of laughter is produced by a deep inspiration followed
by short, interrupted, spasmodic contractions of the chest, and especially
of the diaphragm.[8] Hence we hear of "laughter holding both his sides."
From the shaking of the body, the head nods to and fro. The lower jaw often
quivers up and down, as is likewise the case with some species of baboons,
when they are much pleased.
During laughter the mouth is opened more or less widely,
with the corners drawn much backwards, as well as a little upwards;
and the upper lip is somewhat raised. The drawing back of the corners
is best seen in moderate laughter, and especially in a broad smile--
the latter epithet showing how the mouth is widened.
In the accompanying figs. 1-3, Plate III., different degrees
of moderate laughter and smiling have been photographed.
The figure of the little girl, with the hat is by Dr. Wallich,
and the expression was a genuine one; the other two are
by Mr. Rejlander. Dr. Duchenne repeatedly insists[9] that,
under the emotion of joy, the mouth is acted on exclusively
by the great zygomatic muscles, which serve to draw the corners
backwards and upwards; but judging from the manner in which the upper
teeth are always exposed during laughter and broad smiling,
as well as from my own sensations, I cannot doubt that some
of the muscles running to the upper lip are likewise brought
into moderate action. The upper and lower orbicular muscles
of the eyes are at the same time more or less contracted;
and there is an intimate connection, as explained in the chapter
on weeping, between the orbiculars, especially the lower
ones and some of the muscles running to the upper lip.
Henle remarks[10] on this head, that when a man closely
shuts one eye he cannot avoid retracting the upper lip on
the same side; conversely, if any one will place his finger
on his lower eyelid, and then uncover his upper incisors
as much as possible, he will feel, as his upper lip is drawn
strongly upwards, that the muscles of the lower eyelid contract.
In Henle's drawing, given in woodcut, fig. 2, the _musculus malaris_
(H) which runs to the upper lip may be seen to form an almost
integral part of the lower orbicular muscle.
[7] `De la Physionomie,' p. 186.
[8] Sir C. Bell (Anat. of Expression, p. 147) makes some remarks
on the movement of the diaphragm during laughter.
[9] `Mecanisme de la Physionomie Humaine,' Album, Legende vi.
Dr. Duchenne has given a large photograph of an old man
(reduced on Plate III. fig 4), in his usual passive condition,
and another of the same man (fig. 5), naturally smiling.
The latter was instantly recognized by every one to whom it
was shown as true to nature. He has also given, as an example
of an unnatural or false smile, another photograph (fig. 6)
of the same old man, with the corners of his mouth strongly
retracted by the galvanization of the great zygomatic muscles.
That the expression is not natural is clear, for I showed this
photograph to twenty-four persons, of whom three could not in
the least tell what was meant, whilst the others, though they
perceived that the expression was of the nature of a smile,
answered in such words as "a wicked joke," "trying to laugh,"
"grinning laughter ... .. half-amazed laughter," &c. Dr. Duchenne
attributes the falseness of the expression altogether to the orbicular
muscles of the lower eyelids not being sufficiently contracted;
for he justly lays great stress on their contraction in the
expression of joy. No doubt there is much truth in this view,
but not, as it appears to me, the whole truth. The contraction
of the lower orbiculars is always accompanied, as we have seen,
by the drawing up of the upper lip. Had the upper lip, in fig.
6, been thus acted on to a slight extent, its curvature would
have been less rigid, the naso-labial farrow would have been
slightly different, and the whole expression would, as I believe,
have been more natural, independently of the more conspicuous
effect from the stronger contraction of the lower eyelids.
The corruptor muscle, moreover, in fig. 6, is too much contracted,
causing a frown; and this muscle never acts under the influence
of joy except during strongly pronounced or violent laughter.
[10] Handbuch der System. Anat. des Menschen, 1858,
B. i. s. 144. See my woodcut (H. fig. 2).
By the drawing backwards and upwards of the corners of the mouth,
through the contraction of the great zygomatic muscles,
and by the raising of the upper lip, the cheeks are drawn upwards.
Wrinkles are thus formed under the eyes, and, with old people, at their
outer ends; and these are highly characteristic of laughter or smiling.
As a gentle smile increases into a strong one, or into a laugh,
every one may feel and see, if he will attend to his own sensations
and look at himself in a mirror, that as the upper lip is drawn up
and the lower orbiculars contract, the wrinkles in the lower eyelids
and those beneath the eyes are much strengthened or increased.
At the same time, as I have repeatedly observed, the eyebrows are
slightly lowered, which shows that the upper as well as the lower orbiculars
contract at least to some degree, though this passes unperecived,
as far as our sensations are concerned. If the original photograph
of the old man, with his countenance in its usual placid state
(fig. 4), be compared with that (fig. 5) in which he is naturally smiling,
it may be seen that the eyebrows in the latter are a little lowered.
I presume that this is owing to the upper orbiculars being impelled,
through the force of long-associated habit, to act to a certain extent
in concert with the lower orbiculars, which themselves contract
in connection with the drawing up of the upper lip.
The tendency in the zygomatic muscles to contract under pleasurable emotions
is shown by a curious fact, communicated to me by Dr. Browne, with respect
to patients suffering from GENERAL PARALYSIS OF THE INSANE.[11] "In this
malady there is almost invariably optimism--delusions as to wealth,
rank, grandeur--insane joyousness, benevolence, and profusion, while its
very earliest physical symptom is trembling at the corners of the mouth
and at the outer corners of the eyes. This is a well-recognized fact.
Constant tremulous agitation of the inferior palpebral and great zygomatic
muscles is pathognomic of the earlier stages of general paralysis.
The countenance has a pleased and benevolent expression. As the disease
advances other muscles become involved, but until complete fatuity is reached,
the prevailing expression is that of feeble benevolence."
As in laughing and broadly smiling the cheeks and upper lip are much raised,
the nose appears to be shortened, and the skin on the bridge becomes
finely wrinkled in transverse lines, with other oblique longitudinal
lines on the sides. The upper front teeth are commonly exposed.
A well-marked naso-labial fold is formed, which runs from the wing
of each nostril to the corner of the mouth; and this fold is often
double in old persons.
[11] See, also, remarks to the same effect by Dr. J. Crichton Browne
in `Journal of Mental Science,' April, 1871, p. 149.
A bright and sparkling eye is as characteristic of a pleased
or amused state of mind, as is the retraction of the corners
of the mouth and upper lip with the wrinkles thus produced.
Even the eyes of microcephalous idiots, who are so degraded
that they never learn to speak, brighten slightly when they are
pleased.[12] Under extreme laughter the eyes are too much suffused
with tears to sparkle; but the moisture squeezed out of the glands
during moderate laughter or smiling may aid in giving them lustre;
though this must be of altogether subordinate importance,
as they become dull from grief, though they are then often moist.
Their brightness seems to be chiefly due to their tenseness,[13]
owing to the contraction of the orbicular muscles and to the
pressure of the raised cheeks. But, according to Dr. Piderit,
who has discussed this point more fully than any other writer,[14]
the tenseness may be largely attributed to the eyeballs becoming
filled with blood and other fluids, from the acceleration
of the circulation, consequent on the excitement of pleasure.
He remarks on the contrast in the appearance of the eyes of a hectic
patient with a rapid circulation, and of a man suffering from
cholera with almost all the fluids of his body drained from him.
Any cause which lowers the circulation deadens the eye.
I remember seeing a man utterly prostrated by prolonged and severe
exertion during a very hot day, and a bystander compared his eyes
to those of a boiled codfish.
[12] C. Vogt, `Memoire sur les Microcephales,' 1867, p. 21.
[13] Sir C. Bell, `Anatomy of Expression,' p. 133.
[14] `Mimik und Physiognomik,' 1867, s. 63-67.
To return to the sounds produced during laughter. We can see
in a vague manner how the utterance of sounds of some kind would
naturally become associated with a pleasurable state of mind;
for throughout a large part of the animal kingdom vocal or
instrumental sounds are employed either as a call or as a charm
by one sex for the other. They are also employed as the means
for a joyful meeting between the parents and their offspring,
and between the attached members of the same social community.
But why the sounds which man utters when he is pleased have
the peculiar reiterated character of laughter we do not know.
Nevertheless we can see that they would naturally be as
different as possible from the screams or cries of distress;
and as in the production of the latter, the expirations
are prolonged and continuous, with the inspirations short
and interrupted, so it might perhaps have been expected
with the sounds uttered from joy, that the expirations would
have been short and broken with the inspirations prolonged;
and this is the case.
It is an equally obscure point why the corners of the mouth are
retracted and the upper lip raised during ordinary laughter.
The mouth must not be opened to its utmost extent, for when this occurs
during a paroxysm of excessive laughter hardly any sound is emitted;
or it changes its tone and seems to come from deep down in the throat.
The respiratory muscles, and even those of the limbs,
are at the same time thrown into rapid vibratory movements.
The lower jaw often partakes of this movement, and this
would tend to prevent the mouth from being widely opened.
But as a full volume of sound has to be poured forth, the orifice
of the mouth must be large; and it is perhaps to gain this
end that the corners are retracted and the upper lip raised.
Although we can hardly account for the shape of the mouth
during laughter, which leads to wrinkles being formed beneath
the eyes, nor for the peculiar reiterated sound of laughter,
nor for the quivering of the jaws, nevertheless we may infer
that all these effects are due to some common cause.
For they are all characteristic and expressive of a pleased
state of mind in various kinds of monkeys.
A graduated series can be followed from violent to moderate laughter,
to a broad smile, to a gentle smile, and to the expression
of mere cheerfulness. During excessive laughter the whole body
is often thrown backward and shakes, or is almost convulsed;
the respiration is much disturbed; the head and face become gorged
with blood, with the veins distended; and the orbicular muscles
are spasmodically contracted in order to protect the eyes.
Tears are freely shed. Hence, as formerly remarked,
it is scarcely possible to point out any difference between
the tear-stained face of a person after a paroxysm of excessive
laughter and after a bitter crying-fit.[15] It is probably
due to the close similarity of the spasmodic movements caused
by these widely different emotions that hysteric patients
alternately cry and laugh with violence, and that young children
sometimes pass suddenly from the one to the other state.
Mr. Swinhoe informs me that he has often seen the Chinese,
when suffering from deep grief, burst out into hysterical
fits of laughter.
[15] Sir T. Reynolds remarks (`Discourses,' xii. p. 100), it is curious
to observe, and it is certainly true, that the extremes of contrary
passions are, with very little variation, expressed by the same action."
He gives as an instance the frantic joy of a Bacchante and the grief
of a Mary Magdalen.
I was anxious to know whether tears are freely shed during excessive
laughter by most of the races of men, and I hear from my correspondents
that this is the case. One instance was observed with the Hindoos,
and they themselves said that it often occurred. So it is with
the Chinese. The women of a wild tribe of Malays in the Malacca peninsula,
sometimes shed tears when they laugh heartily, though this seldom occurs.
With the Dyaks of Borneo it must frequently be the case, at least
with the women, for I hear from the Rajah C. Brooke that it is a common
expression with them to say "we nearly made tears from laughter."
The aborigines of Australia express their emotions freely, and they
are described by my correspondents as jumping about and clapping their
hands for joy, and as often roaring with laughter. No less than four
observers have seen their eyes freely watering on such occasions;
and in one instance the tears rolled down their cheeks. Mr. Bulmer,
a missionary in a remote part of Victoria, remarks, "that they have a keen
sense of the ridiculous; they are excellent mimics, and when one of them
is able to imitate the peculiarities of some absent member of the tribe,
it is very common to hear all in the camp convulsed with laughter."
With Europeans hardly anything excites laughter so easily as mimicry;
and it is rather curious to find the same fact with the savages of Australia,
who constitute one of the most distinct races in the world.
In Southern Africa with two tribes of Kafirs, especially with
the women, their eyes often fill with tears during laughter.
Gaika, the brother of the chief Sandilli, answers my query on
this bead, with the words, "Yes, that is their common practice."
Sir Andrew Smith has seen the painted face of a Hottentot
woman all furrowed with tears after a fit of laughter.
In Northern Africa, with the Abyssinians, tears are secreted
under the same circumstances. Lastly, in North America, the same
fact has been observed in a remarkably savage and isolated tribe,
but chiefly with the women; in another tribe it was observed
only on a single occasion.
Excessive laughter, as before remarked, graduates into moderate laughter.
In this latter case the muscles round the eyes are much less contracted,
and there is little or no frowning. Between a gentle laugh and a broad smile
there is hardly any difference, excepting that in smiling no reiterated
sound is uttered, though a single rather strong expiration, or slight noise--
a rudiment of a laugh--may often be heard at the commencement of a smile.
On a moderately smiling countenance the contraction of the upper orbicular
muscles can still just be traced by a slight lowering of the eyebrows.
The contraction of the lower orbicular and palpebral muscles is much plainer,
and is shown by the wrinkling of the lower eyelids and of the skin
beneath them, together with a slight drawing up of the upper lip.
From the broadest smile we pass by the finest steps into the gentlest one.
In this latter case the features are moved in a much less degree,
and much more slowly, and the mouth is kept closed. The curvature
of the naso-labial furrow is also slightly different in the two cases.
We thus see that no abrupt line of demarcation can be drawn between
the movement of the features during the most violent laughter and a
very faint smile.[16]
A smile, therefore, may be said to be the first stage in the development
of a laugh. But a different and more probable view may be suggested;
namely, that the habit of uttering load reiterated sounds from a sense
of pleasure, first led to the retraction of the corners of the mouth
and of the upper lip, and to the contraction of the orbicular muscles;
and that now, through association and long-continued habit,
the same muscles are brought into slight play whenever any cause
excites in us a feeling which, if stronger, would have led to laughter;
and the result is a smile.
[16] Dr. Piderit has come to the same conclusion, ibid. s. 99.
Whether we look at laughter as the full development of
a smile, or, as is more probable, at a gentle smile as the last
trace of a habit, firmly fixed during many generations,
of laughing whenever we are joyful, we can follow in our
infants the gradual passage of the one into the other.
It is well known to those who have the charge of young infants,
that it is difficult to feel sure when certain movements about their
mouths are really expressive; that is, when they really smile.
Hence I carefully watched my own infants. One of them at the age
of forty-five days, and being at the time in a happy frame
of mind, smiled; that is, the corners of the mouth were retracted,
and simultaneously the eyes became decidedly bright.
I observed the same thing on the following day; but on the third
day the child was not quite well and there was no trace of a smile,
and this renders it probable that the previous smiles were real.
Eight days subsequently and during the next succeeding week,
it was remarkable how his eyes brightened whenever he smiled,
and his nose became at the same time transversely wrinkled.
This was now accompanied by a little bleating noise, which perhaps
represented a laugh. At the age of 113 days these little noises,
which were always made during expiration, assumed a slightly
different character, and were more broken or interrupted,
as in sobbing; and this was certainly incipient laughter.
The change in tone seemed to me at the time to be connected
with the greater lateral extension of the mouth as the
smiles became broader.
In a second infant the first real smile was observed at about the same
age, viz. forty-five days; and in a third, at a somewhat earlier age.
The second infant, when sixty-five days old, smiled much more broadly
and plainly than did the one first mentioned at the same age;
and even at this early age uttered noises very like laughter.
In this gradual acquirement, by infants, of the habit of laughing,
we have a case in some degree analogous to that of weeping.
As practice is requisite with the ordinary movements of the body,
such as walking, so it seems to be with laughing and weeping.
The art of screaming, on the other hand, from being of service
to infants, has become finely developed from the earliest days.
_High spirits, cheerfulness_.--A man in high spirits,
though he may not actually smile, commonly exhibits some
tendency to the retraction of the corners of his mouth.
From the excitement of pleasure, the circulation becomes more rapid;
the eyes are bright, and the colour of the face rises.
The brain, being stimulated by the increased flow of blood,
reacts on the mental powers; lively ideas pass still more rapidly
through the mind, and the affections are warmed. I heard a child,
a little under four years old, when asked what was meant by being
in good spirits, answer, "It is laughing, talking, and kissing."
It would be difficult to give a truer and more practical definition.
A man in this state holds his body erect, his head upright,
and his eyes open. There is no drooping of the features,
and no contraction of the eyebrows. On the contrary, the frontal
muscle, as Moreau observes,[17] tends to contract slightly;
and this smooths the brow, removes every trace of a frown,
arches the eyebrows a little, and raises the eyelids.
Hence the Latin phrase, _exporrigere frontem_--
to unwrinkle the brow--means, to be cheerful or merry.
The whole expression of a man in good spirits is exactly
the opposite of that of one suffering from sorrow.
According to Sir C. Bell, "In all the exhilarating emotions
the eyebrows, eyelids, the nostrils, and the angles of the mouth
are raised. In the depressing passions it is the reverse."
Under the influence of the latter the brow is heavy,
the eyelids, cheeks, mouth, and whole head droop; the eyes
are dull; the countenance pallid, and the respiration slow.
In joy the face expands, in grief it lengthens.
Whether the principle of antithesis has here come into play
in producing these opposite expressions, in aid of the direct
causes which have been specified and which are sufficiently plain,
I will not pretend to say.
[17] `La Physionomie,' par G. Lavater, edit.
of 1820, vol. iv. p. 224. See, also, Sir C. Bell, `Anatomy
of Expression,' p. 172, for the quotation given below.
With all the races of man the expression of good spirit appears
to be the same, and is easily recognized. My informants,
from various parts of the Old and New Worlds, answer in the affirmative
to my queries on this head, and they give some particulars with
respect to Hindoos, Malays, and New Zealanders. The brightness
of the eyes of the Australians has struck four observers,
and the same fact has been noticed with Hindoos, New Zealanders,
and the Dyaks of Borneo.
Savages sometimes express their satisfaction not only by smiling,
but by gestures derived from the pleasure of eating.
Thus Mr. Wedgwood[18] quotes Petherick that the negroes on
the Upper Nile began a general rubbing of their bellies when
he displayed his beads; and Leichhardt says that the Australians
smacked and clacked their mouths at the sight of his horses
and bullocks, and more especially of his kangaroo dogs.
The Greenlanders, "when they affirm anything with pleasure,
suck down air with a certain sound;"[19] and this may be an
imitation of the act of swallowing savoury food.
[18] A `Dictionary of English Etymology,' 2nd edit.
1872, Introduction, p. xliv.
Laughter is suppressed by the firm contraction of the orbicular
muscles of the mouth, which prevents the great zygomatic
and other muscles from drawing the lips backwards and upwards.
The lower lip is also sometimes held by the teeth, and this
gives a roguish expression to the face, as was observed with
the blind and deaf Laura Bridgman.[20] The great zygomatic
muscle is sometimes variable in its course, and I have seen
a young woman in whom the _depressores anguli oris_ were
brought into strong action in suppressing a smile; but this
by no means gave to her countenance a melancholy expression,
owing to the brightness of her eyes.
Laughter is frequently employed in a forced manner to conceal or mask
some other state of mind, even anger. We often see persons laughing
in order to conceal their shame or shyness. When a person purses up
his mouth, as if to prevent the possibility of a smile, though there
is nothing to excite one, or nothing to prevent its free indulgence,
an affected, solemn, or pedantic expression is given; but of such hybrid
expressions nothing more need here be said. In the case of derision,
a real or pretended smile or laugh is often blended with the expression
proper to contempt, and this may pass into angry contempt or scorn.
In such cases the meaning of the laugh or smile is to show the offending
person that he excites only amusement.
_Love, tender feelings, &c_.--Although the emotion of love,
for instance that of a mother for her infant, is one of the strongest
of which the mind is capable, it can hardly be said to have any
proper or peculiar means of expression; and this is intelligible,
as it has not habitually led to any special line of action.
No doubt, as affection is a pleasurable sensation, it generally
causes a gentle smile and some brightening of the eyes.
A strong desire to touch the beloved person is commonly felt;
and love is expressed by this means more plainly than by any other.[21]
Hence we long to clasp in our arms those whom we tenderly love.
We probably owe this desire to inherited habit, in association
with the nursing and tending of our children, and with the mutual
caresses of lovers.
[19] Crantz, quoted by Tylor, `Primitive Culture,' 1871, Vol. i. P. 169.
[20] F. Lieber, `Smithsonian Contributions,' 1851, vol. ii. p. 7.
With the lower animals we see the same principle of
pleasure derived from contact in association with love.
Dogs and cats manifestly take pleasure in rubbing against their
masters and mistresses, and in being rubbed or patted by them.
Many kinds of monkeys, as I am assured by the keepers in
the Zoological Gardens, delight in fondling and being fondled
by each other, and by persons to whom they are attached.
Mr. Bartlett has described to me the behaviour of two chimpanzees,
rather older animals than those generally imported into
this country, when they were first brought together.
They sat opposite, touching each other with their much protruded lips;
and the one put his hand on the shoulder of the other.
They then mutually folded each other in their arms.
Afterwards they stood up, each with one arm on the shoulder
of the other, lifted up their heads, opened their mouths,
and yelled with delight.
[21] Mr. Bain remarks (`Mental and Moral Science,' 1868, p.
239), "Tenderness is a pleasurable emotion, variously stimulated,
whose effort is to draw human beings into mutual embrace."
We Europeans are so accustomed to kissing as a mark of affection, that it
might be thought to be innate in mankind; but this is not the case.
Steele was mistaken when he said "Nature was its author, and it
began with the first courtship." Jemmy Button, the Fuegian, told me
that this practice was unknown in his land. It is equally unknown with
the New Zealanders, Tahitians, Papuans, Australians, Somals of Africa,
and the Esquimaux." But it is so far innate or natural that it
apparently depends on pleasure from close contact with a beloved person;
and it is replaced in various parts of the world, by the rubbing of noses,
as with the New Zealanders and Laplanders, by the rubbing or patting
of the arms, breasts, or stomachs, or by one man striking his own face
with the hands or feet of another. Perhaps the practice of blowing,
as a mark of affection, on various parts of the body may depend on
the same principle.[23]
The feelings which are called tender are difficult to analyse;
they seem to be compounded of affection, joy, and especially of sympathy.
These feelings are in themselves of a pleasurable nature, excepting when pity
is too deep, or horror is aroused, as in hearing of a tortured man or animal.
They are remarkable under our present point of view from so readily exciting
the secretion of tears. Many a father and son have wept on meeting
after a long separation, especially if the meeting has been unexpected.
No doubt extreme joy by itself tends to act on the lacrymal glands;
but on such occasions as the foregoing vague thoughts of the grief which would
have been felt had the father and son never met, will probably have passed
through their minds; and grief naturally leads to the secretion of tears.
Thus on the return of Ulysses:--"Telemachus
Rose, and clung weeping round his father's breast.
There the pent grief rained o'er them, yearning thus.
* * * * * *
Thus piteously they wailed in sore unrest,
And on their weepings had gone down the day,
But that at last Telemachus found words to say."
_Worsley's Translation of the Odyssey_, Book xvi. st. 27.
So again when Penelope at last recognized her husband:--
"Then from her eyelids the quick tears did start
And she ran to him from her place, and threw
Her arms about his neck, and a warm dew
Of kisses poured upon him, and thus spake:"
Book xxiii. st. 27.
[22] Sir J. Lubbock, `Prehistoric Times,' 2nd edit.
1869, p. 552, gives full authorities for these statements.
The quotation from Steele is taken from this work.
[23] See a full acount,{sic} with references, by E. B. Tylor, `Researches into
the Early History of Mankind,' 2nd edit. 1870, p. 51.
The vivid recollection of our former home, or of long-past happy days,
readily causes the eyes to be suffused with tears; but here, again,
the thought naturally occurs that these days will never return.
In such cases we may be said to sympathize with ourselves in our present,
in comparison with our former, state. Sympathy with the distresses
of others, even with the imaginary distresses of a heroine in a
pathetic story, for whom we feel no affection, readily excites tears.
So does sympathy with the happiness of others, as with that of a lover,
at last successful after many hard trials in a well-told tale.
Sympathy appears to constitute a separate or distinct emotion;
and it is especially apt to excite the lacrymal glands.
This holds good whether we give or receive sympathy.
Every one must have noticed how readily children burst out crying
if we pity them for some small hurt. With the melancholic insane,
as Dr. Crichton Browne informs me, a kind word will often plunge
them into unrestrained weeping. As soon as we express our pity
for the grief of a friend, tears often come into our own eyes.
The feeling of sympathy is commonly explained by assuming that,
when we see or hear of suffering in another, the idea of suffering
is called up so vividly in our own minds that we ourselves suffer.
But this explanation is hardly sufficient, for it does not account
for the intimate alliance between sympathy and affection.
We undoubtedly sympathize far more deeply with a beloved than
with an indifferent person; and the sympathy of the one gives us
far more relief than that of the other. Yet assuredly we can
sympathize with those for whom we feel no affection.
Why suffering, when actually experienced by ourselves,
excites weeping, has been discussed in a former chapter.
With respect to joy, its natural and universal expression is laughter;
and with all the races of man loud laughter leads to the secretion
of tears more freely than does any other cause excepting distress.
The suffusion of the eyes with tears, which undoubtedly occurs
under great joy, though there is no laughter, can, as it seems to me,
be explained through habit and association on the same principles
as the effusion of tears from grief, although there is no screaming.
Nevertheless it is not a little remarkable that sympathy
with the distresses of others should excite tears more freely
than our own distress; and this certainly is the case.
Many a man, from whose eyes no suffering of his own could wring
a tear, has shed tears at the sufferings of a beloved friend.
It is still more remarkable that sympathy with the happiness or good
fortune of those whom we tenderly love should lead to the same result,
whilst a similar happiness felt by ourselves would leave our eyes dry.
We should, however, bear in mind that the long-continued habit
of restraint which is so powerful in checking the free flow of tears
from bodily pain, has not been brought into play in preventing
a moderate effusion of tears in sympathy with the sufferings
or happiness of others.
Music has a wonderful power, as I have elsewhere attempted to show,[24]
of recalling in a vague and indefinite manner, those strong emotions
which were felt during long-past ages, when, as is probable,
our early progenitors courted each other by the aid of vocal tones.
And as several of our strongest emotions--grief, great joy, love,
and sympathy--lead to the free secretion of tears, it is not surprising
that music should be apt to cause our eyes to become suffused
with tears, especially when we are already softened by any of the
tenderer feelings. Music often produces another peculiar effect.
We know that every strong sensation, emotion, or excitement--
extreme pain, rage, terror, joy, or the passion of love--
all have a special tendency to cause the muscles to tremble;
and the thrill or slight shiver which runs down the backbone and
limbs of many persons when they are powerfully affected by music,
seems to bear the same relation to the above trembling of the body,
as a slight suffusion of tears from the power of music does to weeping
from any strong and real emotion.
_Devotion_.--As devotion is, in some degree, related to affection,
though mainly consisting of reverence, often combined with fear,
the expression of this state of mind may here be briefly noticed.
With some sects, both past and present, religion and love
have been strangely combined; and it has even been maintained,
lamentable as the fact may be, that the holy kiss of love
differs but little from that which a man bestows on a woman,
or a woman on a man.[25] Devotion is chiefly expressed by the face
being directed towards the heavens, with the eyeballs upturned.
Sir C. Bell remarks that, at the approach of sleep,
or of a fainting-fit, or of death, the pupils are drawn
upwards and inwards; and he believes that "when we are wrapt
in devotional feelings, and outward impressions are unheeded,
the eyes are raised by an action neither taught nor acquired."
and that this is due to the same cause as in the above
cases.[26] That the eyes are upturned during sleep is,
as I hear from Professor Donders, certain. With babies,
whilst sucking their mother's breast, this movement of the eyeballs
often gives to them an absurd appearance of ecstatic delight;
and here it may be clearly perceived that a struggle is going
on against the position naturally assumed during sleep.
But Sir C. Bell's explanation of the fact, which rests on the
assumption that certain muscles are more under the control of the will
than others is, as I hear from Professor Donders, incorrect.
As the eyes are often turned up in prayer, without the mind being
so much absorbed in thought as to approach to the unconsciousness
of sleep, the movement is probably a conventional one--
the result of the common belief that Heaven, the source of Divine
power to which we pray, is seated above us.
[24] `The Descent of Man,' vol. ii. p. 336.
A humble kneeling posture, with the hands upturned and palms joined,
appears to us, from long habit, a gesture so appropriate to devotion,
that it might be thought to be innate; but I have not met with any
evidence to this effect with the various extra-European races of mankind.
During the classical period of Roman history it does not appear, as I hear
from an excellent classic, that the hands were thus joined during prayer.
Mr. Rensleigh Wedgwood has apparently given[27] the true explanation,
though this implies that the attitude is one of slavish subjection.
"When the suppliant kneels and holds up his hands with the palms joined,
he represents a captive who proves the completeness of his submission
by offering up his hands to be bound by the victor. It is the pictorial
representation of the Latin _dare manus_, to signify submission."
Hence it is not probable that either the uplifting of the eyes or the joining
of the open hands, under the influence of devotional feelings, are innate
or truly expressive actions; and this could hardly have been expected,
for it is very doubtful whether feelings, such as we should now rank
as devotional, affected the hearts of men, whilst they remained during
past ages in an uncivilized condition.
[25] Dr. Mandsley has a discussion to this effect in his `Body
and Mind,' 1870, p. 85.
[26] `The Anatomy of Expression,' p. 103, and `Philosophical Transactions,'
1823, p. 182.
[27] `The Origin of Language,' 1866, p. 146. Mr. Tylor (`Early History
of Mankind,' 2nd edit. 1870, p. 48) gives a more complex origin
to the position of the hands during prayer. CHAPTER IX.
REFLECTION--MEDITATION-ILL-TEMPER--SULKINESS--DETERMINATION.
The act of frowning--Reflection with an effort, or with
the perception of something difficult or disagreeable--
Abstracted meditation--Ill-temper--Moroseness--Obstinacy Sulkiness
and pouting--Decision or determination--The firm closure
of the mouth.
THE corrugators, by their contraction, lower the eyebrows and bring
them together, producing vertical furrows on the forehead--that is, a frown.
Sir C. Bell, who erroneously thought that the corrugator was peculiar
to man, ranks it as "the most remarkable muscle of the human face.
It knits the eyebrows with an energetic effort, which unaccountably,
but irresistibly, conveys the idea of mind." Or, as he elsewhere says,
"when the eyebrows are knit, energy of mind is apparent, and there
is the mingling of thought and emotion with the savage and brutal
rage of the mere animal."[1] There is much truth in these remarks,
but hardly the whole truth. Dr. Duchenne has called the corrugator
the muscle of reflection;[2] but this name, without some limitation,
cannot be considered as quite correct.
[1] `Anatomy of Expression,' pp. 137, 139. It is not surprising
that the corrugators should have become much more developed in man
than in the anthropoid apes; for they are brought into incessant
action by him under various circumstances, and will have been
strengthened and modified by the inherited effects of use.
We have seen how important a part they play, together with
the orbiculares, in protecting the eyes from being too much
gorged with blood during violent expiratory movements.
When the eyes are closed as quickly and as forcibly as possible,
to save them from being injured by a blow, the corrugators contract.
With savages or other men whose heads are uncovered, the eyebrows
are continually lowered and contracted to serve as a shade against
a too strong light; and this is effected partly by the corrugators.
This movement would have been more especially serviceable to man,
as soon as his early progenitors held their heads erect.
Lastly, Prof. Donders believes (`Archives of Medicine,' ed.
by L. Beale, 1870, vol. v. p. 34), that the corrugators are brought
into action in causing the eyeball to advance in accommodation
for proximity in vision.
A man may be absorbed in the deepest thought, and his brow
will remain smooth until he encounters some obstacle in his
train of reasoning, or is interrupted by some disturbance,
and then a frown passes like a shadow over his brow.
A half-starved man may think intently how to obtain food,
but he probably will not frown unless he encounters either in thought
or action some difficulty, or finds the food when obtained nauseous.
I have noticed that almost everyone instantly frowns if
he perceives a strange or bad taste in what he is eating.
I asked several persons, without explaining my object,
to listen intently to a very gentle tapping sound, the nature
and source of which they all perfectly knew, and not one frowned;
but a man who joined us, and who could not conceive what we were
all doing in profound silence, when asked to listen, frowned much,
though not in an ill-temper, and said he could not in the least
understand what we all wanted. Dr. Piderit[3] who has published
remarks to the same effect, adds that stammerers generally
frown in speaking, and that a man in doing even so trifling
a thing as pulling on a boot, frowns if he finds it too tight.
Some persons are such habitual frowners, that the mere effort
of speaking almost always causes their brows to contract.
[2] `Mecanisme de la Physionomie Humaine,' Album, Legende iii.
[3] `Mimik und Physiognomik,' s. 46.
Men of all races frown when they are in any way perplexed in thought,
as I infer from the answers which I have received to my queries; but I framed
them badly, confounding absorbed meditation with perplexed reflection.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the Australians, Malays, Hindoos, and Kafirs
of South Africa frown, when they are puzzled. Dobritzhoffer remarks
that the Guaranies of South America on like occasions knit their brows.[4]
From these considerations, we may conclude that frowning
is not the expression of simple reflection, however profound,
or of attention, however close, but of something difficult
or displeasing encountered in a train of thought or in action.
Deep reflection can, however, seldom be long carried on without
some difficulty, so that it will generally be accompanied by a frown.
Hence it is that frowning commonly gives to the countenance,
as Sir C. Bell remarks, an aspect of intellectual energy.
But in order that this effect may be produced, the eyes must be
clear and steady, or they may be cast downwards, as often occurs
in deep thought. The countenance must not be otherwise disturbed,
as in the case of an ill-tempered or peevish man, or of one
who shows the effects of prolonged suffering, with dulled eyes
and drooping jaw, or who perceives a bad taste in his food,
or who finds it difficult to perform some trifling act,
such as threading a needle. In these cases a frown may often
be seen, but it will be accompanied by some other expression,
which will entirely prevent the countenance having an appearance
of intellectual energy or of profound thought.
[4] `History of the Abipones,' Eng. translat. vol. ii. p. 59, as quoted
by Lubbock, `Origin of Civilisation,' 1870, p. 355.
We may now inquire how it is that a frown should express the perception
of something difficult or disagreeable, either in thought or action.
In the same way as naturalists find it advisable to trace the embryological
development of an organ in order fully to understand its structure,
so with the movements of expression it is advisable to follow as nearly
as possible the same plan. The earliest and almost sole expression
seen during the first days of infancy, and then often exhibited is
that displayed during the act of screaming; and screaming is excited,
both at first and for some time afterwards, by every distressing or
displeasing sensation and emotion,--by hunger, pain, anger, jealousy, fear,
&c. At such times the muscles round the eyes are strongly contracted;
and this, as I believe, explains to a large extent the act of frowning
during the remainder of our lives. I repeatedly observed my own infants,
from under the age of one week to that of two or three months,
and found that when a screaming-fit came on gradually, the first sign
was the contraction of the corrugators, which produced a slight frown,
quickly followed by the contraction of the other muscles round the eyes.
When an infant is uncomfortable or unwell, little frowns--as I record
in my notes--may be seen incessantly passing like shadows over its face;
these being generally, but not always, followed sooner or later by a
crying-fit. For instance, I watched for some time a baby, between seven
and eight weeks old, sucking some milk which was cold, and therefore
displeasing to him; and a steady little frown was maintained all the time.
This was never developed into an actual crying-fit, though occasionally
every stage of close approach could be observed.
As the habit of contracting the brows has been followed by infants
during innumerable generations, at the commencement of every
crying or screaming fit, it has become firmly associated with
the incipient sense of something distressing or disagreeable.
Hence under similar circumstances it would be apt to be continued
during maturity, although never then developed into a crying-fit.
Screaming or weeping begins to be voluntarily restrained at an early
period of life, whereas frowning is hardly ever restrained at any age.
It is perhaps worth notice that with children much given to weeping,
anything which perplexes their minds, and which would cause
most other children merely to frown, readily makes them weep.
So with certain classes of the insane, any effort of mind,
however slight, which with an habitual frowner would cause
a slight frown, leads to their weeping in an unrestrained manner.
It is not more surprising that the habit of contracting the brows
at the first perception of something distressing, although gained
during infancy, should be retained during the rest of our lives,
than that many other associated habits acquired at an early age
should be permanently retained both by man and the lower animals.
For instance, full-grown cats, when feeling warm and comfortable,
often retain the habit of alternately protruding their fore-feet
with extended toes, which habit they practised for a definite
purpose whilst sucking their mothers.
Another and distinct cause has probably strengthened the habit of frowning,
whenever the mind is intent on any subject and encounters some difficulty.
Vision is the most important of all the senses, and during primeval times
the closest attention must have been incessantly: directed towards
distant objects for the sake of obtaining prey and avoiding danger.
I remember being struck, whilst travelling in parts of South America,
which were dangerous from the presence of Indians, how incessantly,
yet as it appeared unconsciously, the half-wild Gauchos closely scanned
the whole horizon. Now, when any one with no covering on his head
(as must have been aboriginally the case with mankind), strives
to the utmost to distinguish in broad daylight, and especially
if the sky is bright, a distant object, he almost invariably
contracts his brows to prevent the entrance of too much light;
the lower eyelids, cheeks, and upper lip being at the same time raised,
so as to lessen the orifice of the eyes. I have purposely asked
several persons, young and old, to look, under the above circumstances,
at distant objects, making them believe that I only wished to test the power
of their vision; and they all behaved in the manner just described.
Some of them, also, put their open, flat hands over their eyes to keep
out the excess of light. Gratiolet, after making some remarks to nearly
the same effect,[5] says, "Ce sont la des attitudes de vision difficile."
He concludes that the muscles round the eyes contract partly for
the sake of excluding too much light (which appears to me the more
important end), and partly to prevent all rays striking the retina,
except those which come direct from the object that is scrutinized.
Mr. Bowman, whom I consulted on this point, thinks that the contraction
of the surrounding muscles may, in addition, "partly sustain the consensual
movements of the two eyes, by giving a firmer support while the globes
are brought to binocular vision by their own proper muscles."
As the effort of viewing with care under a bright light a distant
object is both difficult and irksome, and as this effort has
been habitually accompanied, during numberless generations,
by the contraction of the eyebrows, the habit of frowning will
thus have been much strengthened; although it was originally
practised during infancy from a quite independent cause, namely as
the first step in the protection of the eyes during screaming.
There is, indeed, much analogy, as far as the state
of the mind is concerned, between intently scrutinizing
a distant object, and following out an obscure train of thought,
or performing some little and troublesome mechanical work.
The belief that the habit of contracting the brows is continued
when there is no need whatever to exclude too much light,
receives support from the cases formerly alluded to,
in which the eyebrows or eyelids are acted on under certain
circumstances in a useless manner, from having been similarly used,
under analogous circumstances, for a serviceable purpose.
For instance, we voluntarily close our eyes when we do not
wish to see any object, and we are apt to close them, when we
reject a proposition, as if we could not or would not see it;
or when we think about something horrible. We raise our
eyebrows when we wish to see quickly all round us, and we often
do the same, when we earnestly desire to remember something;
acting as if we endeavoured to see it.
[5] `De la Physionomie,' pp. 15, 144, 146. Mr. Herbert Spencer
accounts for frowning exclusively by the habit of contracting
the brows as a shade to the eyes in a bright light:
see `Principles of Physiology,' 2nd edit. 1872, p. 546.
_Abstraction. Meditation_.--When a person is lost in thought
with his mind absent, or, as it is sometimes said, "when he is
in a brown study," he does not frown, but his eyes appear vacant.
The lower eyelids are generally raised and wrinkled, in the same manner
as when a short-sighted person tries to distinguish a distant object;
and the upper orbicular muscles are at the same time slightly contracted.
The wrinkling of the lower eyelids under these circumstances has been
observed with some savages, as by Mr. Dyson Lacy with the Australians
of Queensland, and several times by Mr. Geach with the Malays of the
interior of Malacca. What the meaning or cause of this action may be,
cannot at present be explained; but here we have another instance
of movement round the eyes in relation to the state of the mind.
The vacant expression of the eyes is very peculiar, and at once shows
when a man is completely lost in thought. Professor Donders has,
with his usual kindness, investigated this subject for me.
He has observed others in this condition, and has been himself observed
by Professor Engelmann. The eyes are not then fixed on any object,
and therefore not, as I had imagined, on some distant object.
The lines of vision of the two eyes even often become slightly divergent;
the divergence, if the head be held vertically, with the plane
of vision horizontal, amounting to an angle of 2'0 as a maximum.
This was ascertained by observing the crossed double image of a
distant object. When the head droops forward, as often occurs with a man
absorbed in thought, owing to the general relaxation of his muscles,
if the plane of vision be still horizontal, the eyes are necessarily
a little turned upwards, and then the divergence is as much as 3'0,
or 3'0 5': if the eyes are turned still more upwards, it amounts
to between 6'0 and 7'0. Professor Donders attributes this divergence
to the almost complete relaxation of certain muscles of the eyes,
which would be apt to follow from the mind being wholly absorbed.[6]
The active condition of the muscles of the eyes is that of convergence;
and Professor Donders remarks, as bearing on their divergence during
a period of complete abstraction, that when one eye becomes blind,
it almost always, after a short lapse of time, deviates outwards;
for its muscles are no longer used in moving the eyeball inwards
for the sake of binocular vision.
[6] Gratiolet remarks (De la Phys. p. 35), "Quand l'attention
est fixee sur quelque image interieure, l'oeil regarde dqns le
vide et s'associe automatiquement a la contemplation de l'esprit."
But this view hardly deserves to be called an explanation.
Perplexed reflection is often accompanied by certain movements
or gestures. At such times we commonly raise our hands
to our foreheads, mouths, or chins; but we do not act thus,
as far as I have seen, when we are quite lost in meditation,
and no difficulty is encountered. Plautus, describing in one
of his plays[7] a puzzled man, says, "Now look, he has pillared
his chin upon his hand." Even so trifling and apparently
unmeaning a gesture as the raising of the hand to the face has
been observed with some savages. Al. J. Mansel Weale has
seen it with the Kafirs of South Africa; and the native chief
Gaika adds, that men then "sometimes pull their beards."
Mr. Washington Matthews, who attended to some of the wildest
tribes of Indians in the western regions of the United States,
remarks that he has seen them when concentrating their thoughts,
bring their "hands, usually the thumb and index finger,
in contact with some part of the face, commonly the upper lip."
We can understand why the forehead should be pressed or rubbed,
as deep thought tries the brain; but why the hand should be
raised to the mouth or face is far from clear.
_Ill-temper_.--We have seen that frowning is the natural expression
of some difficulty encountered, or of something disagreeable experienced
either in thought or action, and he whose mind is often and readily
affected in this way, will be apt to be ill-tempered, or slightly angry,
or peevish, and will commonly show it by frowning. But a cross expression,
due to a frown, may be counteracted, if the mouth appears sweet, from being
habitually drawn into a smile, and the eyes are bright and cheerful.
So it will be if the eye is clear and steady, and there is the appearance
of earnest reflection. Frowning, with some depression of the corners
of the mouth, which is a sign of grief, gives an air of peevishness.
If a child (see Plate IV., fig. 2)[8] frowns much whilst crying,
but does not strongly contract in the usual manner the orbicular muscles,
a well-marked expression of anger or even of rage, together with misery,
is displayed.
[7] `Miles Gloriosus,' act ii. sc. 2.
If the whole frowning brow be drawn much downward by the
contraction of the pyramidal muscles of the nose, which produces
transverse wrinkles or folds across the base of the nose,
the expression becomes one of moroseness. Duchenne believes
that the contraction of this muscle, without any frowning,
gives the appearance of extreme and aggressive hardness.[9]
But I much doubt whether this is a true or natural expression.
I have shown Duchenne's photograph of a young man, with this muscle
strongly contracted by means of galvanism, to eleven persons,
including some artists, and none of them could form an idea
what was intended, except one, a girl, who answered correctly,
"surely reserve." When I first looked at this photograph,
knowing what was intended, my imagination added, as I believe,
what was necessary, namely, a frowning brow; and consequently
the expression appeared to me true and extremely morose.
[8] The original photograph by Herr Kindermann is much more expressive
than this copy, as it shows the frown on the brow more plainly.
[9] `Mecanisme de la Physionomie Humaine,' Album, Legende iv. figs. 16-18.
A firmly closed mouth, in addition to a lowered and frowning brow,
gives determination to the expression, or may make it obstinate and sullen.
How it comes that the firm closure of the mouth gives the appearance
of determination will presently be discussed. An expression
of sullen obstinacy has been clearly recognized by my informants,
in the natives of six different regions of Australia. It is well marked,
according to Mr. Scott, with the Hindoos. It has been recognized with
the Malays, Chinese, Kafirs, Abyssinians, and in a conspicuous degree,
according to Dr. Rothrock, with the wild Indians of North America,
and according to Mr. D. Forbes, with the Aymaras of Bolivia. I have also
observed it with the Araucanos of southern Chili. Mr. Dyson Lacy remarks
that the natives of Australia, when in this frame of mind, sometimes fold
their arms across their breasts, an attitude which may be seen with us.
A firm determination, amounting to obstinacy, is, also, sometimes expressed
by both shoulders being kept raised, the meaning of which gesture
will be explained in the following chapter.
With young children sulkiness is shown by pouting, or, as it
is sometimes called, "making a snout."[10] When the corners
of the mouth are much depressed, the lower lip is a little
everted and protruded; and this is likewise called a pout.
But the pouting here referred to, consists of the protrusion
of both lips into a tubular form, sometimes to such an extent
as to project as far as the end of the nose, if this be short.
Pouting is generally accompanied by frowning, and sometimes
by the utterance of a booing or whooing noise.
This expression is remarkable, as almost the sole one,
as far as I know, which is exhibited much more plainly
during childhood, at least with Europeans, than during maturity.
There is, however, some tendency to the protrusion of the lips
with the adults of all races under the influence of great rage.
Some children pout when they are shy, and they can then hardly
be called sulky.
[10] Hensleigh Wedgwood on `The Origin of Language,' 1866, p. 78.
From inquiries which I have made in several large families,
pouting does not seem very common with European children;
but it prevails throughout the world, and must be both common
and strongly marked with most savage races, as it has caught
the attention of many observers. It has been noticed in eight
different districts of Australia; and one of my informants
remarks how greatly the lips of the children are then protruded.
Two observers have seen pouting with the children of Hindoos;
three, with those of the Kafirs and Fingoes of South Africa,
and with the Hottentots; and two, with the children of the wild
Indians of North America. Pouting has also been observed with
the Chinese, Abyssinians, Malays of Malacca, Dyaks of Borneo,
and often with the New Zealanders. Mr. Mansel Weale informs me
that he has seen the lips much protruded, not only with the children
of the Kafirs, but with the adults of both sexes when sulky;
and Mr. Stack has sometimes observed the same thing with the men,
and very frequently with the women of New Zealand. A trace
of the same expression may occasionally be detected even
with adult Europeans.
We thus see that the protrusion of the lips, especially with young children,
is characteristic of sulkiness throughout the greater part of the world.
This movement apparently results from the retention, chiefly during youth,
of a primordial habit, or from an occasional reversion to it.
Young orangs and chimpanzees protrude their lips to an extraordinary degree,
as described in a former chapter, when they are discontented, somewhat angry,
or sulky; also when they are surprised, a little frightened, and even
when slightly pleased. Their mouths are protruded apparently for the sake
of making the various noises proper to these several states of mind;
and its shape, as I observed with the chimpanzee, differed slightly when
the cry of pleasure and that of anger were uttered. As soon as these animals
become enraged, the shape of the month wholly changes, and the teeth
are exposed. The adult orang when wounded is said to emit "a singular cry,
consisting at first of high notes, which at length deepen into a low roar.
While giving out the high notes he thrusts out his lips into a funnel shape,
but in uttering the low notes he holds his mouth wide open."[11] With
the gorilla, the lower lip is said to be capable of great elongation.
If then our semi-human progenitors protruded their lips when sulky or a
little angered, in the same manner as do the existing anthropoid apes,
it is not an anomalous, though a curious fact, that our children
should exhibit, when similarly affected, a trace of the same expression,
together with some tendency to utter a noise. For it is not at all
unusual for animals to retain, more or less perfectly, during early youth,
and subsequently to lose, characters which were aboriginally possessed
by their adult progenitors, and which are still retained by distinct species,
their near relations.
Nor is it an anomalous fact that the children of savages
should exhibit a stronger tendency to protrude their lips,
when sulky, than the children of civilized Europeans;
for the essence of savagery seems to consist in the retention
of a primordial condition, and this occasionally holds good even
with bodily peculiarities.[12] It may be objected to this view
of the origin of pouting, that the anthropoid apes likewise
protrude their lips when astonished and even when a little pleased;
whilst with us this expression is generally confined to a sulky
frame of mind. But we shall see in a future chapter that with
men of various races surprise does sometimes lead to a slight
protrusion of the lips, though great surprise or astonishment
is more commonly shown by the mouth being widely opened.
As when we smile or laugh we draw back the corners of the mouth,
we have lost any tendency to protrude the lips, when pleased,
if indeed our early progenitors thus expressed pleasure.
[11] Muller, as quoted by Huxley, `Man's Place in Nature,' 1863, p. 38.
A little gesture made by sulky children may here be noticed, namely,
their "showing a cold shoulder." This has a different meaning, as,
I believe, from the keeping both shoulders raised. A cross child,
sitting on its parent's knee, will lift up the near shoulder,
then jerk it away, as if from a caress, and afterwards give
a backward push with it, as if to push away the offender.
I have seen a child, standing at some distance from any one,
clearly express its feelings by raising one shoulder, giving it
a little backward movement, and then turning away its whole body.
_Decision or determination_.--The firm closure of the mouth tends
to give an expression of determination or decision to the countenance.
No determined man probably ever had an habitually gaping mouth.
Hence, also, a small and weak lower jaw, which seems to indicate
that the mouth is not habitually and firmly closed, is commonly thought
to be characteristic of feebleness of character. A prolonged effort
of any kind, whether of body or mind, implies previous determination;
and if it can be shown that the mouth is generally closed with firmness
before and during a great and continued exertion of the muscular system,
then, through the principle of association, the mouth would almost
certainly be closed as soon as any determined resolution was taken.
Now several observers have noticed that a man, in commencing any violent
muscular effort, invariably first distends his lungs with air, and then
compresses it by the strong contraction of the muscles of the chest;
and to effect this the mouth must be firmly closed. Moreover, as soon
as the man is compelled to draw breath, he still keeps his chest as much
distended as possible.
[11] I have given several instances in my `Descent
of Man,' vol. i. chap. iv.
Various causes have been assigned for this manner of acting.
Sir C. Bell maintains[13] that the chest is distended with air,
and is kept distended at such times, in order to give
a fixed support to the muscles which are thereto attached.
Hence, as he remarks, when two men are engaged in a deadly contest,
a terrible silence prevails, broken only by hard stifled breathing.
There is silence, because to expel the air in the utterance of any
sound would be to relax the support for the muscles of the arms.
If an outcry is heard, supposing the struggle to take place in the dark,
we at once know that one of the two has given up in despair.
Gratiolet admits[14] that when a man has to struggle with another
to his utmost, or has to support a great weight, or to keep
for a long time the same forced attitude, it is necessary for him
first to make a deep inspiration, and then to cease breathing;
but he thinks that Sir C. Bell's explanation is erroneous.
He maintains that arrested respiration retards the circulation
of the blood, of which I believe there is no doubt, and he adduces
some curious evidence from the structure of the lower animals,
showing, on the one hand, that a retarded circulation is necessary
for prolonged muscular exertion, and, on the other hand,
that a rapid circulation is necessary for rapid movements.
According to this view, when we commence any great exertion,
we close our mouths and stop breathing, in order to retard
the circulation of the blood. Gratiolet sums up the subject
by saying, "C'est la la vraie theorie de l'effort continu;"
but how far this theory is admitted by other physiologists I
do not know.
[13] `Anatomy of Expression.' p. 190.
[14] `De la Physionomie,' pp. 118-121.
Dr. Piderit accounts[15] for the firm closure of the mouth during
strong muscular exertion, on the principle that the influence
of the will spreads to other muscles besides those necessarily
brought into action in making any particular exertion; and it is
natural that the muscles of respiration and of the mouth, from being
so habitually used, should be especially liable to be thus acted on.
It appears to me that there probably is some truth in this view,
for we are apt to press the teeth hard together during violent exertion,
and this is not requisite to prevent expiration, whilst the muscles
of the chest are strongly contracted.
Lastly, when a man has to perform some delicate and difficult operation,
not requiring the exertion of any strength, he nevertheless generally closes
his mouth and ceases for a time to breathe; but he acts thus in order
that the movements of his chest may not disturb, those of his arms.
A person, for instance, whilst threading a needle, may be seen to compress
his lips and either to stop breathing, or to breathe as quietly as possible.
So it was, as formerly stated, with a young and sick chimpanzee, whilst it
amused itself by killing flies with its knuckles, as they buzzed about on
the window-panes. To perform an action, however trifling, if difficult,
implies some amount of previous determination.
[15] `Mimik und Physiognomik,' s. 79.
There appears nothing improbable in all the above assigned
causes having come into play in different degrees,
either conjointly or separately, on various occasions.
The result would be a well-established habit, now perhaps inherited,
of firmly closing the mouth at the commencement of and during
any violent and prolonged exertion, or any delicate operation.
Through the principle of association there would also be a strong
tendency towards this same habit, as soon as the mind had
resolved on any particular action or line of conduct, even before
there was any bodily exertion, or if none were requisite.
The habitual and firm closure of the mouth would thus come
to show decision of character; and decision readily passes
into obstinacy. CHAPTER X.
HATRED AND ANGER.
Hatred--Rage, effects of on the system--Uncovering of the teeth--
Rage in the insane--Anger and indignation--As expressed by the various
races of man--Sneering and defiance--The uncovering of the canine
tooth on one side of the face.
IF we have suffered or expect to suffer some wilful injury from a man,
or if he is in any way offensive to us, we dislike him; and dislike easily
rises into hatred. Such feelings, if experienced in a moderate degree,
are not clearly expressed by any movement of the body or features,
excepting perhaps by a certain gravity of behaviour, or by some ill-temper.
Few individuals, however, can long reflect about a hated person,
without feeling and exhibiting signs of indignation or rage.
But if the offending person be quite insignificant, we experience merely
disdain or contempt. If, on the other hand, he is all-powerful, then
hatred passes into terror, as when a slave thinks about a cruel master,
or a savage about a bloodthirsty malignant deity.[1] Most of our
emotions are so closely connected with their expression, that they
hardly exist if the body remains passive--the nature of the expression
depending in chief part on the nature of the actions which have been
habitually performed under this particular state of the mind.
A man, for instance, may know that his life is in the extremest peril,
and may strongly desire to save if; yet, as Louis XVI.
said, when surrounded by a fierce mob, "Am I afraid? feel my pulse."
So a man may intensely hate another, but until his bodily frame
is affected, he cannot be said to be enraged.
[1] See some remarks to this effect by Mr. Bain, `The Emotions and the Will,'
2nd edit. 1865, p. 127.
_Rage_.--I have already had occasion to treat of this emotion in
the third chapter, when discussing the direct influence of the excited
sensorium on the body, in combination with the effects of habitually
associated actions. Rage exhibits itself in the most diversified manner.
The heart and circulation are always affected; the face reddens
or becomes purple, with the veins on the forehead and neck distended.
The reddening of the skin has been observed with the copper-coloured
Indians of South America,[2] and even, as it is said, on the white
cicatrices left by old wounds on negroes.[3] Monkeys also redden
from passion. With one of my own infants, under four months old,
I repeatedly observed that the first symptom of an approaching passion
was the rushing of the blood into his bare scalp. On the other hand,
the action of the heart is sometimes so much impeded by great rage,
that the countenance becomes pallid or livid,[4] and not a few men
with heart-disease have dropped down dead under this powerful emotion.
[2] Rengger, Naturgesch. der Saugethiere von Paraguay, 1830, s. 3.
[3] Sir C. Bell, `Anatomy of Expression,' p. 96. On the other hand,
Dr. Burgess (`Physiology of Blushing,' 1839, p. 31) speaks of the reddening
of a cicatrix in a negress as of the nature of a blush.
[4] Moreau and Gratiolet have discussed the colour of the face
under the influence of intense passion: see the edit.
of 1820 of Lavater, vol. iv. pp. 282 and 300;
and Gratiolet, `De la Physionomie,' p. 345.
The respiration is likewise affected; the chest heaves,
and the dilated nostrils quiver.[5] As Tennyson writes,
"sharp breaths of anger puffed her fairy nostrils out."
Hence we have such expressions as breathing out vengeance,"
and "fuming with anger."[6]
The excited brain gives strength to the muscles, and at the same
time energy to the will. The body is commonly held erect ready
for instant action, but sometimes it is bent forward towards
the offending person, with the limbs more or less rigid.
The mouth is generally closed with firmness, showing fixed
determination, and the teeth are clenched or ground together.
Such gestures as the raising of the arms, with the fists clenched,
as if to strike the offender, are common. Few men in a
great passion, and telling some one to begone, can resist acting
as if they intended to strike or push the man violently away.
The desire, indeed, to strike often becomes so intolerably strong,
that inanimate objects are struck or dashed to the ground;
but the gestures frequently become altogether purposeless or frantic.
Young children, when in a violent rage roll on the ground on
their backs or bellies, screaming, kicking, scratching, or biting
everything within reach. So it is, as I hear from Mr. Scott,
with Hindoo children; and, as we have seen, with the young
of the anthropomorphous apes.
[6] Sir C. Bell `Anatomy of Expression,' pp. 91, 107) has fully discussed
this subject. Moreau remarks (in the edit. of 1820 of `La Physionomie,
par G. Lavater,' vol. iv. p. 237), and quotes Portal in confirmation,
that asthmatic patients acquire permanently expanded nostrils, owing to
the habitual contraction of the elevatory muscles of the wings of the nose.
The explanation by Dr. Piderit (`Mimik und Physiognomik,' s. 82) of the
distension of the nostrils, namely, to allow free breathing whilst the mouth
is closed and the teeth clenched, does not appear to be nearly so correct
as that by Sir C. Bell, who attributes it to the sympathy (_i. e_.
habitual co-action) of all the respiratory muscles. The nostrils of an angry
man may be seen to become dilated, although his mouth is open.
[7] Mr. Wedgwood, `On the Origin of Language,' 1866, p. 76. He also observes
that the sound of hard breathing "is represented by the syllables _puff,
huff, whiff_, whence a _huff_ is a fit of ill-temper."
But the muscular system is often affected in a wholly different way;
for trembling is a frequent consequence of extreme rage.
The paralysed lips then refuse to obey the will, "and the voice sticks
in the throat;"[7] or it is rendered loud, harsh, and discordant.
If there be much and rapid speaking, the mouth froths.
The hair sometimes bristles; but I shall return to this subject
in another chapter, when I treat of the mingled emotions of rage
and terror. There is in most cases a strongly-marked frown
on the forehead; for this follows from the sense of anything
displeasing or difficult, together with concentration of mind.
But sometimes the brow, instead of being much contracted and lowered,
remains smooth, with the glaring eyes kept widely open.
The eyes are always bright, or may, as Homer expresses it,
glisten with fire. They are sometimes bloodshot, and are said
to protrude from their sockets--the result, no doubt, of the head
being gorged with blood, as shown by the veins being distended.
According to Gratiolet," the pupils are always contracted in rage,
and I hear from Dr. Crichton Browne that this is the case in the
fierce delirium of meningitis; but the movements of the iris under
the influence of the different emotions is a very obscure subject.
Shakspeare sums up the chief characteristics of rage as follows:--
"In peace there's nothing so becomes a man,
As modest stillness and humility;
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger:
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Now set the teeth, and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath, and bend up every spirit
To his full height! On, on, you noblest English."
_Henry V_., act iii. sc. 1.
[7] Sir C. Bell `Anatomy of Expression,' p. 95) has some excellent
remarks on the expression of rage.
[8] `De la Physionomie,' 1865, p. 346.
The lips are sometimes protruded during rage in a manner, the meaning
of which I do not understand, unless it depends on our descent from some
ape-like animal. Instances have been observed, not only with Europeans,
but with the Australians and Hindoos. The lips, however, are much more
commonly retracted, the grinning or clenched teeth being thus exposed.
This has been noticed by almost every one who has written on expression.[9]
The appearance is as if the teeth were uncovered, ready for seizing or tearing
an enemy, though there may be no intention of acting in this manner.
Mr. Dyson Lacy has seen this grinning expression with the Australians,
when quarrelling, and so has Gaika with the Kafirs of South America.
Dickens,[10] in speaking of an atrocious murderer who had just been caught,
and was surrounded by a furious mob, describes "the people as jumping
up one behind another, snarling with their teeth, and making at him
like wild beasts." Every one who has had much to do with young children
must have seen how naturally they take to biting, when in a passion.
It seems as instinctive in them as in young crocodiles, who snap their
little jaws as soon as they emerge from the egg.
[9] Sir C. Bell, `Anatomy of Expression,' p. 177. Gratiolet (De
la Phys. p. 369) says, `les dents se decouvrent, et imitent
symboliquement l'action de dechirer et de mordre.'I If,
instead of using the vague term _symboliquement_, Gratiolet had
said that the action was a remnant of a habit acquired during
primeval times when our semi-human progenitors fought together
with their teeth, like gorillas and orangs at the present day,
he would have been more intelligible. Dr. Piderit (`Mimik,' &c., s.
82) also speaks of the retraction of the upper lip during rage.
In an engraving of one of Hogarth's wonderful pictures, passion is
represented in the plainest manner by the open glaring eyes,
frowning forehead, and exposed grinning teeth.
[10] `Oliver Twist,' vol. iii. p. 245.
A grinning expression and the protrusion of the lips appear sometimes
to go together. A close observer says that he has seen many instances
of intense hatred (which can hardly be distinguished from rage, more or
less suppressed) in Orientals, and once in an elderly English woman.
In all these cases there "was a grin, not a scowl--the lips lengthening,
the cheeks settling downwards, the eyes half-closed, whilst the brow
remained perfectly calm."[11]
This retraction of the lips and uncovering of the teeth during
paroxysms of rage, as if to bite the offender, is so remarkable,
considering how seldom the teeth are used by men in fighting,
that I inquired from Dr. J. Crichton Browne whether the habit
was common in the insane whose passions are unbridled.
He informs me that he has repeatedly observed it both with the insane
and idiotic, and has given me the following illustrations:--
Shortly before receiving my letter, be witnessed an uncontrollable
outbreak of anger and delusive jealousy in an insane lady.
At first she vituperated her husband, and whilst doing so foamed
at the mouth. Next she approached close to him with compressed lips,
and a virulent set frown. Then she drew back her lips,
especially the corners of the upper lip, and showed her teeth,
at the same time aiming a vicious blow at him. A second case
is that of an old soldier, who, when he is requested to conform
to the rules of the establishment, gives way to discontent,
terminating in fury. He commonly begins by asking Dr. Browne
whether he is not ashamed to treat him in such a manner.
He then swears and blasphemes, paces tip and down,
tosses his arms wildly about, and menaces any one near him.
At last, as his exasperation culminates, he rushes up
towards Dr. Browne with a peculiar sidelong movement,
shaking his doubled fist, and threatening destruction.
Then his upper lip may be seen to be raised, especially at
the corners, so that his huge canine teeth are exhibited.
He hisses forth his curses through his set teeth, and his
whole expression assumes the character of extreme ferocity.
A similar description is applicable to another man, excepting that
he generally foams at the mouth and spits, dancing and jumping
about in a strange rapid manner, shrieking out his maledictions
in a shrill falsetto voice.
[11] `The Spectator,' July 11, 1868, p. 810.
Dr. Browne also informs me of the case of an epileptic idiot, incapable of
independent movements, and who spends the whole day in playing with
some toys; but his temper is morose and easily roused into fierceness.
When any one touches his toys, he slowly raises his head from its
habitual downward position, and fixes his eyes on the offender,
with a tardy yet angry scowl. If the annoyance be repeated, he draws
back his thick lips and reveals a prominent row of hideous fangs
(large canines being especially noticeable), and then makes a quick
and cruel clutch with his open hand at the offending person.
The rapidity of this clutch, as Dr. Browne remarks, is marvellous
in a being ordinarily so torpid that he takes about fifteen seconds,
when attracted by any noise, to turn his head from one side to the other.
If, when thus incensed, a handkerchief, book, or other article,
be placed into his hands, he drags it to his mouth and bites it.
Mr. Nicol has likewise described to me two cases of insane patients,
whose lips are retracted during paroxysms of rage.
Dr. Maudsley, after detailing various strange animal-like traits
in idiots, asks whether these are not due to the reappearance
of primitive instincts--"a faint echo from a far-distant past,
testifying to a kinship which man has almost outgrown."
He adds, that as every human brain passes, in the course
of its development, through the same stages as those occurring
in the lower vertebrate animals, and as the brain of an idiot
is in an arrested condition, we may presume that it "will
manifest its most primitive functions, and no higher functions."
Dr. Maudsley thinks that the same view may be extended to the brain
in its degenerated condition in some insane patients; and asks,
whence come "the savage snarl, the destructive disposition,
the obscene language, the wild howl, the offensive habits,
displayed by some of the insane? Why should a human being,
deprived of his reason, ever become so brutal in character,
as some do, unless he has the brute nature within him?"[12] This
question must, as it would appear, he answered in the affirmative.
_Anger, Indignation_.--These states of the mind differ from rage only
in degree, and there is no marked distinction in their characteristic signs.
Under moderate anger the action of the heart is a little increased,
the colour heightened, and the eyes become bright. The respiration
is likewise a little hurried; and as all the muscles serving for this
function act in association, the wings of the nostrils are somewhat
raised to allow of a free indraught of air; and this is a highly
characteristic sign of indignation. The mouth is commonly compressed,
and there is almost always a frown on the brow. Instead of the frantic
gestures of extreme rage, an indignant man unconsciously throws himself
into an attitude ready for attacking or striking his enemy, whom he will
perhaps scan from head to foot in defiance. He carries his head erect,
with his chest well expanded, and the feet planted firmly on the ground.
He holds his arms in various positions, with one or both elbows squared,
or with the arms rigidly suspended by his sides. With Europeans
the fists are commonly clenched.[13] The figures 1 and 2 in Plate VI.
are fairly good representations of men simulating indignation.
Any one may see in a mirror, if he will vividly imagine that he has
been insulted and demands an explanation in an angry tone of voice,
that he suddenly and unconsciously throws himself into some such attitude.
[12] `Body and Mind,' 1870, pp. 51-53.
Rage, anger, and indignation are exhibited in nearly the same manner
throughout the world; and the following descriptions may be worth giving
as evidence of this, and as illustrations of some of the foregoing remarks.
There is, however, an exception with respect to clenching the fists,
which seems confined chiefly to the men who fight with their fists.
With the Australians only one of my informants has seen the fists clenched.
All agree about the body being held erect; and all, with two exceptions,
state that the brows are heavily contracted. Some of them allude to
the firmly-compressed mouth, the distended nostrils, and flashing eyes.
According to the Rev. Mr. Taplin, rage, with the Australians, is expressed
by the lips being protruded, the eyes being widely open; and in the case
of the women by their dancing about and casting dust into the air.
Another observer speaks of the native men, when enraged, throwing their
arms wildly about.
[13] Le Brun, in his well-known `Conference sur l'Expression'
(`La Physionomie, par Lavater,' edit. of 1820, vol. lx. p. 268), remarks
that anger is expressed by the clenching of the fists. See, to the
same effect, Huschke, `Mimices et Physiognomices, Fragmentum Physiologicum,'
1824, p. 20. Also Sir C. Bell, `Anatomy of Expression,' p. 219.
I have received similar accounts, except as to the clenching of the fists,
in regard to the Malays of the Malacca peninsula, the Abyssinians,
and the natives of South Africa. So it is with the Dakota Indians
of North America; and, according to Mr. Matthews, they then hold
their heads erect, frown, and often stalk away with long strides.
Mr. Bridges states that the Fuegians, when enraged, frequently stamp
on the ground, walk distractedly about, sometimes cry and grow pale.
The Rev. Mr. Stack watched a New Zealand man and woman quarrelling,
and made the following entry in his note-book: "Eyes dilated, body swayed
violently backwards and forwards, head inclined forwards, fists clenched,
now thrown behind the body, now directed towards each other's faces."
Mr. Swinhoe says that my description agrees with what he has seen
of the Chinese, excepting that an angry man generally inclines
his body towards his antagonist, and pointing at him, pours forth
a volley of abuse.
Lastly, with respect to the natives of India, Mr. J. Scott has sent
me a full description of their gestures and expression when enraged.
Two low-caste Bengalees disputed about a loan. At first they were calm,
but soon grew furious and poured forth the grossest abuse on each
other's relations and progenitors for many generations past.
Their gestures were very different from those of Europeans;
for though their chests were expanded and shoulders squared,
their arms remained rigidly suspended, with the elbows turned
inwards and the hands alternately clenched and opened.
Their shoulders were often raised high, and then again lowered.
They looked fiercely at each other from under their lowered and
strongly wrinkled brows, and their protruded lips were firmly closed.
They approached each other, with heads and necks stretched forwards,
and pushed, scratched, and grasped at each other. This protrusion
of the head and body seems a common gesture with the enraged;
and I have noticed it with degraded English women whilst quarrelling
violently in the streets. In such cases it may be presumed that
neither party expects to receive a blow from the other.
A Bengalee employed in the Botanic Gardens was accused, in the presence
of Mr. Scott, by the native overseer of having stolen a valuable plant.
He listened silently and scornfully to the accusation; his attitude erect,
chest expanded, mouth closed, lips protruding, eyes firmly set
and penetrating. He then defiantly maintained his innocence,
with upraised and clenched hands, his head being now pushed forwards,
with the eyes widely open and eyebrows raised. Mr. Scott also watched
two Mechis, in Sikhim, quarrelling about their share of payment.
They soon got into a furious passion, and then their bodies became less erect,
with their heads pushed forwards; they made grimaces at each other;
their shoulders were raised; their arms rigidly bent inwards at the elbows,
and their hands spasmodically closed, but not properly clenched.
They continually approached and retreated from each other, and often raised
their arms as if to strike, but their hands were open, and no blow was given.
Mr. Scott made similar observations on the Lepchas whom he often
saw quarrelling, and he noticed that they kept their arms rigid and almost
parallel to their bodies, with the hands pushed somewhat backwards
and partially closed, but not clenched.
_Sneering, Defiance: Uncovering the canine tooth on one side_.--
The expression which I wish here to consider differs but little from
that already described, when the lips are retracted and the grinning
teeth exposed. The difference consists solely in the upper lip
being retracted in such a manner that the canine tooth on one
side of the face alone is shown; the face itself being generally
a little upturned and half averted from the person causing offence.
The other signs of rage are not necessarily present. This expression
may occasionally be observed in a person who sneers at or defies another,
though there may be no real anger; as when any one is playfully
accused of some fault, and answers, "I scorn the imputation."
The expression is not a common one, but I have seen it exhibited with
perfect distinctness by a lady who was being quizzed by another person.
It was described by Parsons as long ago as 1746, with an engraving,
showing the uncovered canine on one side.[14] Mr. Rejlander,
without my having made any allusion to the subject, asked me whether I
had ever noticed this expression, as he had been much struck by it.
He has photographed for me (Plate IV. fig 1) a lady, who sometimes
unintentionally displays the canine on one side, and who can do
so voluntarily with unusual distinctness.
The expression of a half-playful sneer graduates into one
of great ferocity when, together with a heavily frowning
brow and fierce eye, the canine tooth is exposed.
A Bengalee boy was accused before Mr. Scott of some misdeed.
The delinquent did not dare to give vent to his wrath in words,
but it was plainly shown on his countenance, sometimes by a
defiant frown, and sometimes "by a thoroughly canine snarl."
When this was exhibited, "the corner of the lip over the eye-tooth,
which happened in this case to be large and projecting, was raised
on the side of his accuser, a strong frown being still retained
on the brow." Sir C. Bell states[15] that the actor Cooke
could express the most determined hate "when with the oblique
cast of his eyes he drew up the outer part of the upper lip,
and discovered a sharp angular tooth."
[14] Transact. Philosoph. Soc., Appendix, 1746, p. 65.
The uncovering of the canine tooth is the result of a double movement.
The angle or corner of the mouth is drawn a little backwards, and at the same
time a muscle which runs parallel to and near the nose draws up the outer
part of the upper lip, and exposes the canine on this side of the face.
The contraction of this muscle makes a distinct furrow on the cheek,
and produces strong wrinkles under the eye, especially at its inner corner.
The action is the same as that of a snarling dog; and a dog when pretending
to fight often draws up the lip on one side alone, namely that facing
his antagonist. Our word _sneer_ is in fact the same as _snarl_,
which was originally _snar_, the _l_ "being merely an element implying
continuance of action."[16]
I suspect that we see a trace of this same expression in what is
called a derisive or sardonic smile. The lips are then kept
joined or almost joined, but one corner of the mouth is retracted
on the side towards the derided person; and this drawing back
of the corner is part of a true sneer. Although some persons
smile more on one side of their face than on the other,
it is not easy to understand why in cases of derision the smile,
if a real one, should so commonly be confined to one side.
I have also on these occasions noticed a slight twitching
of the muscle which draws up the outer part of the upper lip;
and this movement, if fully carried out, would have uncovered
the canine, and would have produced a true sneer.
[15] `Anatomy of Expression,' p. 136. Sir C. Bell calls (p. 131)
the muscles which uncover the canines the snarling muscles.
[16] Hensleigh Wedgwood, `Dictionary of English Etymology,'
1865, vol. iii. pp. 240, 243.
Mr. Bulmer, an Australian missionary in a remote part of Gipps' Land, says,
in answer to my query about the uncovering of the canine on one side, "I find
that the natives in snarling at each other speak with the teeth closed,
the upper lip drawn to one side, and a general angry expression of face;
but they look direct at the person addressed." Three other observers
in Australia, one in Abyssinia, and one in China, answer my query on this
head in the affirmative; but as the expression is rare, and as they
enter into no details, I am afraid of implicitly trusting them.
It is, however, by no means improbable that this animal-like expression
may be more common with savages than with civilized races. Mr. Geach is
an observer who may be fully trusted, and he has observed it on one occasion
in a Malay in the interior of Malacca. The Rev. S. O. Glenie answers,
"We have observed this expression with the natives of Ceylon, but not often."
Lastly, in North America, Dr. Rothrock has seen it with some wild Indians,
and often in a tribe adjoining the Atnahs.
Although the upper lip is certainly sometimes raised on one
side alone in sneering at or defying any one, I do not know
that this is always the case, for the face is commonly
half averted, and the expression is often momentary.
The movement being confined to one side may not be an essential
part of the expression, but may depend on the proper
muscles being incapable of movement excepting on one side.
I asked four persons to endeavour to act voluntarily in
this manner; two could expose the canine only on the left side,
one only on the right side, and the fourth on neither side.
Nevertheless it is by no means certain that these same persons,
<251> if defying any one in earnest, would not unconsciously have
uncovered their canine tooth on the side, whichever it might be,
towards the offender. For we have seen that some persons cannot
voluntarily make their eyebrows oblique, yet instantly act
in this manner when affected by any real, although most trifling,
cause of distress. The power of voluntarily uncovering
the canine on one side of the face being thus often wholly lost,
indicates that it is a rarely used and almost abortive action.
It is indeed a surprising fact that man should possess the power,
or should exhibit any tendency to its use; for Mr. Sutton has never
noticed a snarling action in our nearest allies, namely, the monkeys
in the Zoological Gardens, and he is positive that the baboons,
though furnished with great canines, never act thus, but uncover
all their teeth when feeling savage and ready for an attack.
Whether the adult anthropomorphous apes, in the males of whom
the canines are much larger than in the females, uncover them
when prepared to fight, is not known.
The expression here considered, whether that of a playful sneer
or ferocious snarl, is one of the most curious which occurs in man.
It reveals his animal descent; for no one, even if rolling on the ground
in a deadly grapple with an enemy, and attempting to bite him,
would try to use his canine teeth more than his other teeth.
We may readily believe from our affinity to the anthropomorphous apes
that our male semi-human progenitors possessed great canine teeth,
and men are now occasionally born having them of unusually large size,
with interspaces in the opposite jaw for their reception.[17] We may
further suspect, notwithstanding that we have no support from analogy,
that our semi-human progenitors uncovered their canine teeth
when prepared for battle, as we still do when feeling ferocious,
or when merely sneering at or defying some one, without any intention
of making a real attack with our teeth.
[17] `The Descent of Man,' 1871, vol. L p. 126. CHAPTER XI.
DISDAIN--CONTEMPT--DISGUST-GUILT--PRIDE, ETC.--HELPLESSNESS--PATIENCE--
AFFIRMATION AND NEGATION.
Contempt, scorn and disdain, variously expressed--Derisive smile--
Gestures expressive of contempt--Disgust--Guilt, deceit, pride, &c.--
Helplessness or impotence--Patience--Obstinacy--Shrugging the shoulders
common to most of the races of man--Signs of affirmation and negation.
SCORN and disdain can hardly be distinguished from contempt,
excepting that they imply a rather more angry frame of mind.
Nor can they be clearly distinguished from the feelings discussed
in the last chapter under the terms of sneering and defiance.
Disgust is a sensation rather more distinct in its nature
and refers to something revolting, primarily in relation to
the sense of taste, as actually perceived or vividly imagined;
and secondarily to anything which causes a similar feeling,
through the sense of smell, touch, and even of eyesight.
Nevertheless, extreme contempt, or as it is often called
loathing contempt, hardly differs from disgust. These several
conditions of the mind are, therefore, nearly related;
and each of them may be exhibited in many different ways.
Some writers have insisted chiefly on one mode of expression,
and others on a different mode. From this circumstance M. Lemoine
has argued[1] that their descriptions are not trustworthy.
But we shall immediately see that it is natural that the
feelings which we have here to consider should be expressed
in many different ways, inasmuch as various habitual actions
serve equally well, through the principle of association,
for their expression.
Scorn and disdain, as well as sneering and defiance, may be displayed
by a slight uncovering of the canine tooth on one side of the face;
and this movement appears to graduate into one closely like a smile.
Or the smile or laugh may be real, although one of derision;
and this implies that the offender is so insignificant that he excites
only amusement; but the amusement is generally a pretence.
Gaika in his answers to my queries remarks, that contempt
is commonly shown by his countrymen, the Kafirs, by smiling;
and the Rajah Brooke makes the same observation with respect to the Dyaks
of Borneo. As laughter is primarily the expression of simple joy,
very young children do not, I believe, ever laugh in derision.
The partial closure of the eyelids, as Duchenne[2] insists,
or the turning away of the eyes or of the whole body,
are likewise highly expressive of disdain. These actions
seem to declare that the despised person is not worth looking
at or is disagreeable to behold. The accompanying photograph
(Plate V. fig. 1) by Mr. Rejlander, shows this form of disdain.
It represents a young lady, who is supposed to be tearing up
the photograph of a despised lover.
The most common method of expressing contempt is by movements
about the nose, or round the mouth; but the latter movements,
when strongly pronounced, indicate disgust. The nose may be slightly
turned up, which apparently follows from the turning up of the upper lip;
or the movement may be abbreviated into the mere wrinkling of the nose.
The nose is often slightly contracted, so as partly to close the passage;[3]
and this is commonly accompanied by a slight snort or expiration.
All these actions are the same with those which we employ when we
perceive an offensive odour, and wish to exclude or expel it.
In extreme cases, as Dr. Piderit remarks,[4] we protrude and raise
both lips, or the upper lip alone, so as to close the nostrils
as by a valve, the nose being thus turned up. We seem thus to say
to the despised person that he smells offensively,[5] in nearly
the same manner as we express to him by half-closing our eyelids,
or turning away our faces, that he is not worth looking at.
It must not, however, be supposed that such ideas actually pass
through the mind when we exhibit our contempt; but as whenever we
have perceived a disagreeable odour or seen a disagreeable sight,
actions of this kind have been performed, they have become habitual
or fixed, and are now employed under any analogous state of mind.
[1] `De In Physionomie et la Parole,' 1865, p. 89.
[2] `Physionomie Humaine,' Album, Legende viii. p. 35.
Gratiolet also speaks (De la Phys. 1865, p. 52) of the turning
away of the eyes and body.
[3] Dr. W. Ogle, in an interesting paper on the Sense
of Smell (`Medico-Chirurgical Transactions,' vol. liii. p. 268), shows
that when we wish to smell carefully, instead of taking one deep
nasal inspiration, we draw in the air by a succession of rapid short sniffs.
If "the nostrils be watched during this process, it will be seen that,
so far from dilating, they actually contract at each sniff.
The contraction does not include the whole anterior opening, but only
the posterior portion." He then explains the cause of this movement.
When, on the other hand, we wish to exclude any odour, the contraction,
I presume, affects only the anterior part of the nostrils.
[4] `Mimik und Physiognomik,' ss. 84, 93. Gratiolet (ibid. p.
155) takes nearly the same view with Dr. Piderit respecting
the expression of contempt and disgust.
[5] Scorn implies a strong form of contempt; and one of the roots
of the word `scorn' means, according to Mr. Wedgwood (Dict. of
English Etymology, vol. iii. p. 125), ordure or dirt.
A person who is scorned is treated like dirt.
Various odd little gestures likewise indicate contempt;
for instance, _snapping one's fingers_. This, as Mr. Taylor
remarks,[6] "is not very intelligible as we generally see it;
but when we notice that the same sign made quite gently,
as if rolling some tiny object away between the finger and thumb,
or the sign of flipping it away with the thumb-nail and forefinger,
are usual and well-understood deaf-and-dumb gestures, denoting
anything tiny, insignificant, contemptible, it seems as though we
had exaggerated and conventionalized a perfectly natural action,
so as to lose sight of its original meaning. There is a curious
mention of this gesture by Strabo." Mr. Washington Matthews
informs me that, with the Dakota Indians of North America,
contempt is shown not only by movements of the face, such as those
above described, but "conventionally, by the hand being closed
and held near the breast, then, as the forearm is suddenly extended,
the hand is opened and the fingers separated from each other.
If the person at whose expense the sign is made is present, the hand
is moved towards him, and the head sometimes averted from him."
This sudden extension and opening of the hand perhaps indicates
the dropping or throwing away a valueless object.
The term `disgust,' in its simplest sense, means something offensive
to the taste. It is curious how readily this feeling is excited
by anything unusual in the appearance, odour, or nature of our food.
In Tierra del Fuego a native touched with his finger some cold
preserved meat which I was eating at our bivouac, and plainly
showed utter disgust at its softness; whilst I felt utter disgust
at my food being touched by a naked savage, though his hands did
not appear dirty. A smear of soup on a man's beard looks disgusting,
though there is of course nothing disgusting in the soup itself.
I presume that this follows from the strong association in our minds
between the sight of food, however circumstanced, and the idea
of eating it.
[6] `Early History of Mankind,' 2nd edit. 1870, p. 45.
As the sensation of disgust primarily arises in connection
with the act of eating or tasting, it is natural that its
expression should consist chiefly in movements round the mouth.
But as disgust also causes annoyance, it is generally accompanied
by a frown, and often by gestures as if to push away or to guard
oneself against the offensive object. In the two photographs
(figs. 2 and 3, on Plate V.) Mr. Rejlander has simulated this
expression with some success. With respect to the face,
moderate disgust is exhibited in various ways; by the mouth being
widely opened, as if to let an offensive morsel drop out; by spitting;
by blowing out of the protruded lips; or by a sound as of clearing
the throat. Such guttural sounds are written _ach_ or _ugh_;
and their utterance is sometimes accompanied by a shudder,
the arms being pressed close to the sides and the shoulders
raised in the same manner as when horror is experienced.[7]
Extreme disgust is expressed by movements round the month
identical with those preparatory to the act of vomiting.
The mouth is opened widely, with the upper lip strongly retracted,
which wrinkles the sides of the nose, and with the lower lip
protruded and everted as much as possible. This latter movement
requires the contraction of the muscles which draw downwards
the corners of the mouth.[8]
[7] See, to this effect, Mr. Hensleigh Wedgwood's Introduction
to the `Dictionary of English Etymology,' 2nd edit.
1872, p. xxxvii.
It is remarkable how readily and instantly retching or actual vomiting
is induced in some persons by the mere idea of having partaken
of any unusual food, as of an animal which is not commonly eaten;
although there is nothing in such food to cause the stomach to reject it.
When vomiting results, as a reflex action, from some real cause--
as from too rich food, or tainted meat, or from an emetic--it does not
ensue immediately, but generally after a considerable interval of time.
Therefore, to account for retching or vomiting being so quickly and easily
excited by a mere idea, the suspicion arises that our progenitors
must formerly have had the power (like that possessed by ruminants
and some other animals) of voluntarily rejecting food which disagreed
with them, or which they thought would disagree with them; and now,
though this power has been lost, as far as the will is concerned,
it is called into involuntary action, through the force of a formerly
well-established habit, whenever the mind revolts at the idea
of having partaken of any kind of food, or at anything disgusting.
This suspicion receives support from the fact, of which I am assured
by Mr. Sutton, that the monkeys in the Zoological Gardens often vomit
whilst in perfect health, which looks as if the act were voluntary.
We can see that as man is able to communicate by language to his
children and others, the knowledge of the kinds of food to be avoided,
he would have little occasion to use the faculty of voluntary rejection;
so that this power would tend to be lost through disuse.
[8] Duchenne believes that in the eversion of the lower lip,
the corners are drawn downwards by the _depressores anguli oris_.
Henle (Handbuch d. Anat. des Menschen, 1858, B. i. s. 151) concludes that
this is effected by the _musculus quadratus menti_.
As the sense of smell is so intimately connected with that of taste,
it is not surprising that an excessively bad odour should excite retching
or vomiting in some persons, quite as readily as the thought of revolting
food does; and that, as a further consequence, a moderately offensive
odour should cause the various expressive movements of disgust.
The tendency to retch from a fetid odour is immediately strengthened
in a curious manner by some degree of habit, though soon lost by longer
familiarity with the cause of offence and by voluntary restraint.
For instance, I wished to clean the skeleton of a bird, which had not
been sufficiently macerated, and the smell made my servant and myself
(we not having had much experience in such work) retch so violently,
that we were compelled to desist. During the previous days I had
examined some other skeletons, which smelt slightly; yet the odour
did not in the least affect me, but, subsequently for several days,
whenever I handled these same skeletons, they made me retch.
From the answers received from my correspondents it appears that
Back to Full Books
|