Hence a characteristic difference between the Lion and the Tiger. The habits of the latter are diurnal, and he disregards night-fires: the Lion, on the contrary, whose eyes are not calculated for the glare of day, cannot bear to encounter fire-light at night. Yet these physical conformations are sometimes overcome by the rage of hunger; and hence, in Mr. Edwin Landseer’s contending group, the Lion is represented as attacking the Tiger although it be day.
Mr. Bell treats learnedly, and we believe with much originality, of the facial-muscles of this class of quadrupeds, in his “Anatomy of Expression.”—We shall offer a few extracts, by which the reader will perceive how limited are their powers of expression of countenance, when compared with those of human nature, notwithstanding their superiority over all other quadrupeds.
“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?