The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals | Page 8

the subject of expression bear the date
of the year 1838.
All the authors who have written on Expression, with the exception of
Mr. Spencer--the great expounder of the principle of Evolution-- appear
to have been firmly convinced that species, man of course included,
came into existence in their present condition. Sir C. Bell, being thus
convinced, maintains that many of our facial muscles are "purely
instrumental in expression;" or are "a special provision" for this sole
object.[12] But the simple fact that the anthropoid apes possess the
same facial muscles as we do,[13] renders it very improbable that these
muscles in our case serve exclusively for expression; for no one, I
presume, would be inclined to admit that monkeys have been endowed
with special muscles solely for exhibiting their hideous grimaces.
Distinct uses, independently of expression, can indeed be assigned with
much probability for almost all the facial muscles.
Sir C. Bell evidently wished to draw as broad a distinction as possible
between man and the lower animals; and he consequently asserts that
with "the lower creatures there is no expression but what may be
referred, more or less plainly, to their acts of volition or necessary
instincts." He further maintains that their faces "seem chiefly capable of
expressing rage and fear."[14] But man himself cannot express love
and humility by external signs, so plainly as does a dog, when with
drooping ears, hanging lips, flexuous body, and wagging tail, he meets
his beloved master. Nor can these movements in the dog be explained
by acts of volition or necessary instincts, any more than the beaming
eyes and smiling cheeks of a man when he meets an old friend. If Sir C.
Bell had been questioned about the expression of affection in the dog,
he would no doubt have answered that this animal had been created
with special instincts, adapting him for association with man, and that
all further enquiry on the subject was superfluous.

[12] `Anatomy of Expression,' 3rd edit. pp. 98, 121, 131.
[13] Professor Owen expressly states (Proc. Zoolog. Soc. 1830, p. 28)
that this is the case with respect to the Orang, and specifies all the more
important muscles which are well known to serve with man for the
expression of his feelings. See, also, a description of several of the
facial muscles in the Chimpanzee, by Prof. Macalister, in `Annals and
Magazine of Natural History,' vol. vii. May, 1871, p. 342.
[14] `Anatomy of Expression,' pp. 121, 138.
Although Gratiolet emphatically denies[15] that any muscle has been
developed solely for the sake of expression, he seems never to have
reflected on the principle of evolution. He apparently looks at each
species as a separate creation. So it is with the other writers on
Expression. For instance, Dr. Duchenne, after speaking of the
movements of the limbs, refers to those which give expression to the
face, and remarks:[16] "Le createur n'a donc pas eu a se preoccuper ici
des besoins de la mecanique; il a pu, selon sa sagesse, ou--que l'on me
pardonne cette maniere de parler--par une divine fantaisie, mettre en
action tel ou tel muscle, un seul ou plusieurs muscles a la fois, lorsqu'il
a voulu que les signes caracteristiques des passions, meme les plus
fugaces, lussent ecrits passagerement sur la face de l'homme. Ce
langage de la physionomie une fois cree, il lui a suffi, pour le rendre
universel et immuable, de donner a tout etre humain la faculte
instinctive d'exprimer toujours ses sendments par la contraction des
memes muscles."
Many writers consider the whole subject of Expression as inexplicable.
Thus the illustrious physiologist Muller, says,[17] "The completely
different expression of the features in different passions shows that,
according to the kind of feeling excited, entirely different groups of the
fibres of the facial nerve are acted on. Of the cause of this we are quite
ignorant."
[15] `De la Physionomie,' pp. 12, 73.
[16] `Mecanisme de la Physionomie Humaine,' 8vo edit. p. 31.
[17] `Elements of Physiology,' English translation, vol. ii. p. 934.
No doubt as long as man and all other animals are viewed as
independent creations, an effectual stop is put to our natural desire to
investigate as far as possible the causes of Expression. By this doctrine,
anything and everything can be equally well explained; and it has

proved as pernicious with respect to Expression as to every other
branch of natural history. With mankind some expressions, such as the
bristling of the hair under the influence of extreme terror, or the
uncovering of the teeth under that of furious rage, can hardly be
understood, except on the belief that man once existed in a much lower
and animal-like condition. The community of certain expressions in
distinct though allied species, as in the movements of the same facial
muscles during