A	>>	B	>>	C	>>	D	>>	E
F	>>	G	>>	H	>>	I	>>	J
K	>>	L	>>	M	>>	N	>>	O
P	>>	R	>>	S	>>	T	>>	U
V	>>	W	>>			X	>>	Z

Unknown - "The Crimson Fairy Book"

the Abbe Prevost - "Manon Lescaut "

Grace Isabel Colbron and Augusta Groner - "The Case of the Registered Letter"

Gummere - "Beowulf"

The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals

C >> Charles Darwin >> The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals





[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.

Copyright (c) 2007. fullstories.net. All rights reserved.