The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals by Charles Darwin (classic book list TXT) 📖

>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