Part 2

“The violent passions mark themselves so distinctly on the countenances both of men and of animals, that we are apt in the first instance to consider the movements by which they are indicated, as certain signs or characters provided by Nature, for the express purpose of intimating the internal emotion; and to suppose that they are interpreted by the observer in consequence of a peculiar and instinctive faculty. This view of things, however, so natural at first sight, is not altogether satisfactory to philosophy; and a more jealous observation of the facts, seems to suggest an opposite theory, in which instinctive agency is rejected, and the appearances are explained from a consideration of the necessities and voluntary exertions of the animal. With regard to the observer, it has been asserted, that it is by experience alone that he distinguishes the signs of the passions; that we learn, while infants, to consider smiles as expressions of kindness, because they are accompanied by acts of beneficence and by endearments; and frowns as the contrary, because we find them followed by blows; that the expression of anger in a brute, is only that which has been observed to precede his biting; and that of fondness, his fawning and licking of the hand. With regard to the creature itself, it is said, what has been called the external signs of passion, are merely the concomitants of those voluntary movements, which the passions or habits suggest; that the glare of the Lion’s eye, for example, is the consequence of a voluntary exertion to see his prey more clearly—his grin, or snarl, the natural motion of uncasing his fangs before he uses them. This, however, is not quite true of all animals and of all expression of passion.”

“Attending merely to the evidence furnished by anatomical investigation, all that I shall venture to affirm is this: that a remarkable difference is to be found between the anatomy and range of expression, in man and in animals: that in the former there seems to be a systematic provision for that mode of communication and that natural language, which is to be read in the changes of the countenance: that there is no emotion in the mind of man which has not its appropriate signs; and that there are even muscles in the human face to which no other use can be assigned than to serve as the organs of this language: that, on the other hand, there is in the lower animals no range of expression which is not fairly referable as a mere accessary to the voluntary or needful actions of the animal; and that this accessary expression does not appear to be in any degree commensurate to the variety and extent of the animal’s passions.”

“There appears to me (continues MR. BELL) to be no expression in the face of any animal lower in the scale of being than quadrupeds; and in them the strongest and most marked expression is that of rage; the object of which is opposition, resistance, and defence. But on examination it will be found (consistently with the position, that this is merely an accessary of the motions natural to the accomplishment of the object which the animal has in view) that the strength of the expression is in exact proportion to the strength of the principal action in the creature when thus excited.

“The gramnivorous animals, which seek their subsistence, not by preying upon others, nor by the ferocity, contest, and victory which supply the carnivorous with food, have in their features no strong expression of rage. Their expression is chiefly confined indeed to the effect produced on the general system. Thus the inflamed eye and the breathing nostrils of the Bull, are induced only by the general excitement. His only proper expression of rage, is in the position of the head, with the horns turned obliquely to the ground, ready to strike: and indeed it may be observed in general that animals which strike with the horns, shew little indication of fear or rage, except in the position of the head. In all gramnivorous animals, the skin of the head is closely attached to the skull, and capable only of very limited motion: the eye is almost uniformly mild, and the lips unmoved by passion.

“It is in carnivorous animals, with whose habits and manner of life, ferocity is instinctively connected, as the great means of their subsistence, that rage is distinguished by the most remarkable strength of expression. The eye-ball is terrible, and the retraction of the flesh of the lips indicates the most savage fury. But the first, is merely the exerted attention of the animal; and the other a preparatory exposure of the canine teeth. The great animals of prey—the Lion and the Tiger—are quite incapable of any other expression of feature, than this particular display of ferociousness. When they fawn upon their keeper, there is no motion in their features that indicates affection.”

In this assertion, that the countenances of the great animals of prey are incapable of any other than ferocious expression, we do not quite coincide with our learned physiologist. When they fawn upon their keeper, we think that indications of affection are exhibited; and find ourselves ready to ask what else than kindly expression is that “licking of the hand” which our author has before mentioned. If, however, we should grant that they may not be capable of affectionate expression toward their keeper, we can scarcely doubt that—toward their young—if we could observe them in their wild state, and in their moments of playful intercourse and enjoyment among each other—they are: at least, we think there are motions in their features that indicate affection, as well as fear, enquiry, surprise, gratitude, pleasurable wantonness, and some other sentiments, or emotions. This is our conviction: at the same time, we perceive that the range of their ferocious expression far exceeds the savage circle of their domestic charities. Are not even the least of these observable in the habits and manners of the domestic Cat, who belongs to the Tiger genera? But we have even seen a Tiger in his den, who looked good-natured enough to be stroked and patted: and of the Lion, of whom MR. GRIFFITH relates the following anecdote, what can be said or thought?

“Hearing some noise under his cage, the Lion passed his paw between the bars, and actually hauled up his keeper who was cleaning beneath; but as soon as he perceived that he had thus ill used his master, he instantly lay down upon his back in an attitude of complete submission.”

Or what can be said of the circumstance mentioned by SENECA (of which he was personally witness), of a Lion, to whom a man, who had formerly been his keeper, was exposed for destruction in the amphitheatre at Rome; and who was not only instantly recognised, but defended and protected by the grateful beast?—Or of the story related by DR. SOUTHEY, of the Lion who had broken loose, submitting to the Cid, and allowing himself to be led back peaceably to his place of confinement?

Could any painter of talent proceed to represent either of these _facts_, without finding in the countenance of the Lion, the muscles and the means of expressing a corresponding gentleness, or generosity, of feeling?

What could be said or thought of these things? Why it may be said, and will be thought, by all those who take both sides of the argument fairly into the question—that MR. BELL has discovered and declared, that the muscles of affection, do not exist in the carnivora. Ergo, that the sentiment which we so translate or acknowledge—the appearances (that is) with which we may find ourselves affected—can only be expression of a negative kind; resulting from the relaxation of those muscles whose tension is necessary to the purposes, or the expression, of ferocity: that “the force of Nature can no further go;” and that the painter—the supposed painter, of such subjects, who is appealed to above—in order to be in any degree successful, must “make a third, by joining the former two”—that is to say, by mingling a portion of human nature with that of the animal: which brings us round to the practice and the probable theory of RUBENS; of which it affords more justification, and of a higher kind, than superficial reasoners can be aware of.

But, when muscles of affection are mentioned, do we talk of a positive and acknowledged certainty; or only of a construction that has been put upon certain muscles of the face, by those who have an hypothesis to maintain, or who can trace affectionate expression in no other? And, are we thence to infer the exhaustion of the subject, and non-entity of the expression?

No. VII.

MR. SPILSBURY’S LION, who has turned round his head to look at a Snake, affords a delineated example in point. Here is no more, we think, than the latent capability of ferocity: just so much as cannot be separated from the native character of this noble quadruped.—The eye-ball is here, not “terrible;” nor is “the most savage fury” indicated by the retraction of the lips, although the lower canine teeth are exposed. Here is a general sense of dignity; but the leading, present expression of the moment, (as it strikes us,) is that of curiosity, or excited attention; mingled with some degree of surprise that a contemptible little Snake should presume to roll his puny volumes in the royal presence. It would appear that the Lion has heard something hiss, and cares a little, to know what it may be.

Will it be further objected that this is _Art_?—To be sure it is. But we think that such Lion-looks are to be seen in Nature; and that such were seen, when the Dog which appealed to, and obtained, the _royal_ pity, was first thrown into the Lion’s den at the Tower. We believe that this representation of the Lion and Snake is not taken from any old master, but is MR. SPILSBURY’S own design.

No. VIII.

Neither is there any expression of ferocity, but of home comfort, in these two maneless Lions—or LION and LIONESS of SENEGAL. That which is asleep, however, rather illustrates our definition of _Character_, and is so far out of the question. The Lioness—who is awake, is a kind of _Belle-Sauvage_. Entirely without ferocity, she has some little expression of attention gently aroused by some slight cause—less important, we should think than the distant cry of a Chacal—a noise in the den, perhaps, not loud enough to make it worth while to wake her companion in order to see what’s the matter. But her expression of countenance, is almost as mild as that of a kitten in a chimney corner.—In fact, they seem—notwithstanding their Herculean strength—a kind of hearth-rug Lions.[1]

Footnote 1:

This was written before the beautiful hearth-rug Lion introduced to us by Mr. Crosse of Leeds, and which is equal to the finest painting.

After venturing to express this slight difference of opinion (if it amount to so much) with our distinguished anatomist of Expression, we return, with becoming respect, to his valuable Treatise: though as we do not propose to exhibit, like him, an anatomical and comparative view of the Carnivorous and Gramnivorous genera, we shall confine ourselves to a short extract or two, relating to the Carnivora alone—

“It is of man alone that we can with strict propriety say the countenance is an index of the mind, having expression corresponding with each emotion of the soul. Other animals have no expression but that which arises by mere accident, the concomitant of the emotions necessary to the accomplishment of the object of the passions.”—

“I have to remark, as relative to painting, (my original subject of enquiry) that this remarkable difference between the expression in man, and animals, naturally leads us to investigate what are the peculiarities of mere animal expression.

“In order to see distinctly what the peculiarities of mere animal expression are, it seems proper to reduce the muscles of expression in animals, to their proper classes. These muscles, as they appear in the several quadrupeds, may be distinguished into—1. Those which raise the lips from the teeth: 2. Those which surround the eye-lids: and 3. Those which move the nostrils.”

He next proceeds to state that “in the Carnivorous animal, the muscles of the lip are so directed as to raise the lip from the canine teeth;”—and these he distinguishes by the name of “_Ringentes_, or snarling muscles.”

The snarling muscles take their origin from the margin of the orbit of the eye, and from the upper jaw, and are inserted into that part of the upper lip from which the whiskers grow, and which is opposite to the canine teeth; and although they are assisted in this office by other muscles, (the masticating and zygomatic muscles,) I have ventured to distinguish them particularly as the muscles of snarling. This action of snarling is quite peculiar to the ferocious and carnivorous animals.

“2. Muscles which surround the eye-lid. In man the upper eye-lid is raised by a muscle coming from the bottom of the orbit. But, besides this muscle, animals of prey in whom there is that peculiar and ferocious splendour of the eye, which we distinguish in the Tiger, for example, or the Lion—have three muscles infixed in the eye-lids, which drawing the eye-lids backward upon the peculiarly prominent eye-ball, produce the fixed straining of the eye, and by stretching the coats, give a greater brilliancy to the reflection. These muscles may be classed under the term _Scintillantes_.

“3. The muscles of the nostril are not less distinct and peculiar, in different classes of animals, than those of the eyes and lips. In the Carnivorous animals, the nose is comparatively insignificant, provision being made in the open mouth for any occasional increase of respiration above the uniform play of the lungs.”

Taking respectful, friendly, and reluctant leave of MR. BELL, we trust that conformity will be found between these pictorial remarks and anatomical elucidations of his, and our engraved representations of the Carnivora.

No. IX.

The interior of a rocky den, where the LION dares to intrude on the retired repose of a ROYAL TIGER, copied by MR. SPILSBURY from the Sketch-book of STUBBS. On the part of the Tiger, there is expressed a certain half frantic suspension of purpose. His look is fierce, though apprehensive, and as if his mind was not made up whether to become the assailant, or stand on the defensive. He is evidently taken by surprise; and if he does not fear, he is thoroughly conscious (as DR. JOHNSON said, when he was to meet LORD THURLOW) that “there is something to _encounter_:” while the Lion, feeling also that he has met with his match, is arousing his terrible energies. The heroes are threatening: the storm has gathered: and is about to burst in fury.

With regard to the “ferocious splendour of their eyes,” and the exposure of their canine teeth by means of the _Ringentes_, the reader will find here a strict accordance with MR. BELL’S theory.

No. X.

The TIGRESS of BENGAL, which has been designed, as well as etched, by MR. THOMAS LANDSEER, from that at the Exeter ’Change Menagerie, affords also a pertinent illustration of the principles which MR. BELL had derived from combining study with dissection: theory with practice. The “three muscles infixed in the eye-lids, which, drawing the eye-lids backward upon the peculiarly prominent eye-ball, produce the fixed straining of the eye, and by stretching the coats, give a greater brilliancy to the reflection,” are here brought into action by a violent and unexpected outrage done to the maternal feelings. Here too is exemplified the origin, insertion, and physical use, of those snarling muscles, which are so properly named and defined by our learned anatomist. We cannot but wish, however, that he had written also of those of the lower jaw, which so powerfully conduce to this snarling and dreadful expression.

The mother has arrived at a fortunate conjuncture for her cubs, which lie sleeping below, in a small den or dark recess of the bank, whither a Serpent has stolen. Twisted among the jungle, which affords an advantageous post both of attack and defence for the Serpent—the Tigress has reason to dread an enemy so powerful and insidious; and, as in the preceding Engraving, both parties are prepared for the encounter, and fully aware of the importance of a first blow.

No. XI.

THESE RAMPANT LIONS, bear the name of RUBENS as their author. SIR JOHN SEBRIGHT, we believe, has the original picture. It would neither deteriorate from its intrinsic merit as a work of art, nor from its nominal value (we suspect), should it turn out to be from the pencil of SNYDERS; or a performance of RUBENS and SNYDERS in conjunction. They not unfrequently painted on the same canvas; but the high reputation and rank of RUBENS, has in some measure absorbed that of his coadjutor, except among first-rate connoisseurs—whereas, in all that relates to the details of Nature, SNYDERS was the superior painter of _animals_: and our reasons for thinking that he had at least a hand in this picture of the rampant Lions, are, 1st, The superior attention which is here paid to the details of Nature. 2ndly, That the action of the nearest of the two Lions, is precisely that of the same animal, in SNYDERS’ very capital picture from the fable of the Lion liberated by the Mouse, now in the Cabinet of THOMAS FRANKLIN, Esq. 3rdly, That the study in oil of a dead Lion, in the collection of G. WATSON TAYLOR, Esq. also believed to be from the hand of SNYDERS, bears internal evidence of being painted, not only from Nature, but from the very same individual Lion, with the above. They are all portraits of the same animal. It appears as if SNYDERS, having obtained possession of a dead Lion, after making the study now belonging to MR. TAYLOR, had put him in this rampant attitude, and painted from him as long as he lasted. But perhaps RUBENS and SNYDERS did this in concert: for on the other hand may be recollected a masterly sketch in oil of the heads only of these rampant Lions, which was exhibited at the British Gallery two seasons ago, bearing the _name_ of RUBENS. If this name was written by RUBENS himself, the probability is as above stated, that both artists painted at the same time from the same model. On this point we do but sum up such evidence as is before us, leaving the verdict to the reader.

We believe that this subject also, has passed through the medium of an Etching by BLOTELING, for it differs in some minor respects from the picture in the gallery of SIR JOHN SEBRIGHT. It however affords further illustration of the theory of expression laid down by MR. BELL, while it embodies the Scriptural idea of a “ramping and roaring Lion seeking whom he may devour.”

We have mentioned above, our having been disposed, on a certain occasion of visiting a public menagerie, to pat and stroke a Royal Tiger as he lay in his den with his nose toward the spectator, and whose looks, though certainly far from angelic, we could almost have called amiable: yet this is very far from being the character of the Tiger. To stroke, or pat, or touch them in any way, however, no person should ever venture, except their keepers; even the tame Tigers, that are sometimes brought up almost without animal food by the mendicant priests of Hindostan, are strictly prohibited from being touched—“under the utmost rigours of religious anathema,” says COL. WILLIAMSON, who relates a circumstance of his having visited a Faukeer who kept a Tiger of this kind in the wilds of Colgong.

No. XII.

The amiable-looking Tiger of whom we have spoken, lay something in the attitude and manner of the principal PANTHER, in the present picturesque group which MR. SPILSBURY copied from the Sketch-book of that admirable painter and anatomist of animals, STUBBS.

Perhaps this sentiment of ours, may be ascribed—in part at least—to the undulations of form, glossiness of surface, and brilliancy of colours, of these interesting creatures, reviving the early mental impressions which we remember to have received at the sight of shining and speckled shells, butterflies’ wings, and other objects of pure beauty; and in part to our having associated ideas of innocence and domesticated habits and comfort, with the “sympathetic mirth” (as GOLDSMITH’S phrase is) of sportive kittens.

It may not be unworthy of our best philosophy to pause here, and observe how Nature contrives to mingle, and seems to insist on mingling, sentiments and mental impressions, which analysing man is so fond of reducing to first elements—as he calls them. Surely there is, about these Carnivorous and terrible creatures, a saving grace—a beauty in their dreadfulness, which is exceedingly interesting, although it co-exist with cruelty: for if they are cruel, their cruelty is involuntary, and not implacable; and therefore, if not pardonable, not hateful—while the external beauty which they possess, is of a positive nature.

Reverting here to our own scholastic distinction, we think that Nature has, in the instance of this species of quadrupeds, mingled with similar success, energy of character, with a degree of mildness of expression. The natural character of the Panther is fearfully ferocious, yet a superinduced kindly expression may be seen in this group from the pencil of STUBBS—a sworn disciple of Nature—which may shew that in their home retiredness, they have not been left destitute of the means of letting each other see that they are sociable, friendly, and not entirely without the means of expressing the gentler emotions. Men are perhaps too exclusively disposed to look at the objects around them, as those objects immediately concern themselves: MR. STUBBS, in composing this capital group, took a more extensive and genuine view of things; and notwithstanding the Panther is larger and more formidable than the Leopard (from which quadruped he is not always easily distinguishable), has depicted them as scarcely less mild and gentle than the domestic Cat.

The evidence of facts, however, when set in apposition, affords, in all probability, the most efficacious and convincing means of manifesting such principles as we are here submitting, while they exhibit the _varieties_ of animal expression to the best advantage; and we therefore introduce another GROUP of PANTHERS, from the same Sketch-book, by STUBBS, more malignant in their aspects.

No. XIII.