tous, suivant leur mode d'action propre, comme si chacun d'eux avait ete directement affecte."
Gratiolet appears to overlook inherited habit, and even to some extent habit in the individual; and therefore he fails, as it seems to me, to give the right explanation, or any explanation at all, of many gestures and expressions. As an illustration of what he calls symbolic movements, I will quote his remarks (p. 37), taken from M. Chevreul, on a man playing at billiards. "Si une bille devie legerement de la direction que le joueur pretend zlui imprimer, ne l'avez-vous pas vu cent fois la pousser du regard, de la tete et meme des epaules, comme si ces mouvements, purement symboliques, pouvaient rectifier son trajet? Des mouvements non moins significatifs se produisent quand la bille manque d'une impulsion suffisante. Et cliez les joueurs novices, ils sont quelquefois accuses au point d'eveiller le sourire sur les levres des spectateurs." Such movements, as it appeirs to me, may be attributed simply to habit. As often as a man has wished to move an object to one side, he has always pushed it to that side when forwards, he has pushed it forwards; and if he has wished to arrest it, he has pulled backwards. Therefore, when a man sees his ball travelling in a wrong direction, and he intensely wishes it to go in another direction, he cannot avoid, from long habit, unconsciously performing movements which in other cases he has found effectual.
As an instance of sympathetic movements Gratiolet gives (p. 212) the following case: – "un jeune chien A oreilles droites, auquel son maitre presente de loin quelque viande appetissante, fixe avec ardeur ses yeux sur cet objet dont il suit tous les mouvements, et pendant que les yeux regardent, les deux oreilles se portent en avant comme si cet objet pouvait etre entendu." Here, instead of speaking of sympathy between the ears and eyes, it appears to me more simple to believe, that as dogs during many generations have, whilst intently looking at any object, pricked their ears in order to perceive any sound; and conversely have looked intently in the direction of a sound to which they may have listened, the movements of these organs have become firmly associated together through long-continued habit.
Dr. Piderit published in 1859 an essay on Expression, which I have not seen, but in which, as he states, he forestalled Gratiolet in many of his views. In 1867 he published his 'Wissenschaftliches System der Mimik und Physiognomik.' It is hardly possible to give in a few sentences a fair notion of his views; perhaps the two following sentences will tell as much as can be briefly told: "the muscular movements of expression are in part related to imaginary objects, and in part to imaginary sensorial impressions. In this proposition lies the key to the comprehension of all expressive muscular movements." (s. 25) Again, "Expressive movements manifest themselves chiefly in the numerous and mobile muscles of the face, partly because the nerves by which they are set into motion originate in the most immediate vicinity of the mind-organ, but partly also because these muscles serve to support the organs of sense." (s. 26.) If Dr. Piderit had studied Sir C. Bell's work, he would probably not have said (s. 101) that violent laughter causes a frown from partaking of the nature of pain; or that with infants (s. 103) the tears irritate the eyes, and thus excite the contraction of the surrounding in muscles. Many good remarks are scattered throughout this volume, to which I shall hereafter refer.
Short discussions on Expression may be found in various works, which need not here be particularised. Mr. Bain, however, in two of his works has treated the subject at some length. He says,[8] "I look upon the expression so-called as part and parcel of the feeling. I believe it to be a general law of the mind that along with the fact of inward feeling or consciousness, there is a diffusive action or excitement over the bodily members." In another place he adds, "A very considerable number of the facts may be brought under the following principle: namely, that states of pleasure are connected with an increase, and states of pain with an abatement, of some, or all, of the vital functions." But the above law of the diffusive action of feelings seems too general to throw much light on special expressions.
Mr. Herbert Spencer, in treating of the Feelings in his 'Principles of Psychology' (1855), makes the following remarks: – "Fear, when strong, expresses itself in cries, in efforts to hide or escape, in palpitations and tremblings; and these are just the manifestations that would accompany an actual experience of the evil feared. The destructive passions are shown in a general tension of the muscular system, in gnashing of the teeth and protrusion of the claws, in dilated eyes and nostrils in growls; and these are weaker forms of the actions that accompany the killing of prey." Here we have, as I believe, the true theory of a large number of expressions; but the chief interest and difficulty of the subject lies in following out the wonderfully complex results. I infer that some one (but who he is I have not been able to ascertain) formerly advanced a nearly similar view, for Sir C. Bell says,[9] "It has been maintained that what are called the external signs of passion, are only the concomitants of those voluntary movements which the structure renders necessary." Mr. Spencer has also published[10] a valuable essay on the physiology of Laughter, in which he insists on "the general law that feeling passing a certain pitch, habitually vents itself in bodily action," and that "an overflow of nerve-force undirected by any motive, will manifestly take first the most habitual routes; and if these do not suffice, will next overflow into the less habitual ones." This law I believe to be of the highest importance in throwing light on our subject.'[11]
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.
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