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[1101]
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[1102] 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;[1103]
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,[1104] 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,[1105] 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.

Various odd little gestures likewise indicate contempt; for instance, snapping
one’s fingers. This, as Mr. Taylor remarks,[1106] “is not very
intelligible as we generally see it; but when we notice that the same sign
made quite gently, as if rolling some tiny object away between the finger
and thumb, or the sign of flipping it away with the thumb-nail and
forefinger, are usual and well-understood deaf-and-dumb gestures, denoting
anything tiny, insignificant, contemptible, it seems as though we had
exaggerated and conventionalized a perfectly natural action, so as to lose
sight of its original meaning. There is a curious mention of this gesture
by Strabo.” Mr. Washington Matthews informs me that, with the Dakota
Indians of North America, contempt is shown not only by movements of the
face, such as those above described, but “conventionally, by the hand
being closed and held near the breast, then, as the forearm is suddenly
extended, the hand is opened and the fingers separated from each other. If
the person at whose expense the sign is made is present, the hand is moved
towards him, and the head sometimes averted from him.” This sudden
extension and opening of the hand perhaps indicates the dropping or
throwing away a valueless object.

The term ‘disgust,’ in its simplest sense, means something offensive to
the taste. It is curious how readily this feeling is excited by anything
unusual in the appearance, odour, or nature of our food. In Tierra del
Fuego a native touched with his finger some cold preserved meat which I
was eating at our bivouac, and plainly showed utter disgust at its
softness; whilst I felt utter disgust at my food being touched by a naked
savage, though his hands did not appear dirty. A smear of soup on a man’s
beard looks disgusting, though there is of course nothing disgusting in
the soup itself. I presume that this follows from the strong association
in our minds between the sight of food, however circumstanced, and the
idea of eating it.

As the sensation of disgust primarily arises in connection with the act of
eating or tasting, it is natural that its expression should consist
chiefly in movements round the mouth. But as disgust also causes
annoyance, it is generally accompanied by a frown, and often by gestures
as if to push away or to guard oneself against the offensive object. In
the two photographs (figs. 2 and 3, on Plate V.) Mr. Rejlander has
simulated this expression with some success. With respect to the face,
moderate disgust is exhibited in various ways; by the mouth being widely
opened, as if to let an offensive morsel drop out; by spitting; by blowing
out of the protruded lips; or by a sound as of clearing the throat. Such
guttural sounds are written ach or ugh; and their utterance
is sometimes accompanied by a shudder, the arms being pressed close to the
sides and the shoulders raised in the same manner as when horror is
experienced.[1107] Extreme disgust is expressed by movements
round the month identical with those preparatory to the act of vomiting.
The mouth is opened widely, with the upper lip strongly retracted, which
wrinkles the sides of the nose, and with the lower lip protruded and
everted as much as possible. This latter movement requires the contraction
of the muscles which draw downwards the corners of the mouth.[1108]

It is remarkable how readily and instantly retching or actual vomiting is
induced in some persons by the mere idea of having partaken of any unusual
food, as of an animal which is not commonly eaten; although there is
nothing in such food to cause the stomach to reject it. When vomiting
results, as a reflex action, from some real cause—as from too rich
food, or tainted meat, or from an emetic—it does not ensue
immediately, but generally after a considerable interval of time.
Therefore, to account for retching or vomiting being so quickly and easily
excited by a mere idea, the suspicion arises that our progenitors must
formerly have had the power (like that possessed by ruminants and some
other animals) of voluntarily rejecting food which disagreed with them, or
which they thought would disagree with them; and now, though this power
has been lost, as far as the will is concerned, it is called into
involuntary action, through the force of a formerly well-established
habit, whenever the mind revolts at the idea of having partaken of any
kind of food, or at anything disgusting. This suspicion receives support
from the fact, of which I am assured by Mr. Sutton, that the monkeys in
the Zoological Gardens often vomit whilst in perfect health, which looks
as if the act were voluntary. We can see that as man is able to
communicate by language to his children and others, the knowledge of the
kinds of food to be avoided, he would have little occasion to use the
faculty of voluntary rejection; so that this power would tend to be lost
through disuse.

As the sense of smell is so intimately connected with that of taste, it is
not surprising that an excessively bad odour should excite retching or
vomiting in some persons, quite as readily as the thought of revolting
food does; and that, as a further consequence, a moderately offensive
odour should cause the various expressive movements of disgust. The
tendency to retch from a fetid odour is immediately strengthened in a
curious manner by some degree of habit, though soon lost by longer
familiarity with the cause of offence and by voluntary restraint. For
instance, I wished to clean the skeleton of a bird, which had not been
sufficiently macerated, and the smell made my servant and myself (we not
having had much experience in such work) retch so violently, that we were
compelled to desist. During the previous days I had examined some other
skeletons, which smelt slightly; yet the odour did not in the least affect
me, but, subsequently for several days, whenever I handled these same
skeletons, they made me retch.

From the answers received from my correspondents it appears that the
various movements, which have now been described as expressing contempt
and disgust, prevail throughout a large part of the world. Dr. Rothrock,
for instance, answers with a decided affirmative with respect to certain
wild Indian tribes of North America. Crantz says that when a Greenlander
denies anything with contempt or horror he turns up his nose, and gives a
slight sound through it.[1109] Mr. Scott has sent me a graphic
description of the face of a young Hindoo at the sight of castor-oil,
which he was compelled occasionally to take. Mr. Scott has also seen the
same expression on the faces of high-caste natives who have approached
close to some defiling object. Mr. Bridges says that the Fuegians “express
contempt by shooting out the lips and hissing through them, and by turning
up the nose.” The tendency either to snort through the nose, or to make a
noise expressed by ugh or ach, is noticed by several of my
correspondents.

Spitting seems an almost universal sign of contempt or disgust; and
spitting obviously represents the rejection of anything offensive from the
mouth. Shakspeare makes the Duke of Norfolk say, “I spit at him—call
him a slanderous coward and a villain.” So, again, Falstaff says, “Tell
thee what, Hal,—if I tell thee a lie, spit in my face.” Leichhardt
remarks that the Australians “interrupted their speeches by spitting, and
uttering a noise like pooh! pooh! apparently expressive of their disgust.”
And Captain Burton speaks of certain negroes “spitting with disgust upon
the ground.” Captain Speedy informs me that this is likewise the case with
the Abyssinians. Mr. Geach says that with the Malays of Malacca the
expression of disgust “answers to spitting from the mouth;” and with the
Fuegians, according to Mr. Bridges “to spit at one is the highest mark of
contempt.”[1110]

I never saw disgust more plainly expressed than on the face of one of my
infants at the age of five months, when, for the first time, some cold
water, and again a month afterwards, when a piece of ripe cherry was put
into his mouth. This was shown by the lips and whole mouth assuming a
shape which allowed the contents to run or fall quickly out; the tongue
being likewise protruded. These movements were accompanied by a little
shudder. It was all the more comical, as I doubt whether the child felt
real disgust—the eyes and forehead expressing much surprise and
consideration. The protrusion of the tongue in letting a nasty object fall
out of the mouth, may explain how it is that lolling out the tongue
universally serves as a sign of contempt and hatred.[1111]

We have now seen that scorn, disdain, contempt, and disgust are expressed
in many different ways, by movements of the features, and by various
gestures; and that these are the same throughout the world. They all
consist of actions representing the rejection or exclusion of some real
object which we dislike or abhor, but which does not excite in us certain
other strong emotions, such as rage or terror; and through the force of
habit and association similar actions are performed, whenever any
analogous sensation arises in our minds.

Jealousy, Envy, Avarice, Revenge, Suspicion, Deceit, Slyness, Guilt,
Vanity, Conceit, Ambition, Pride, Humility, &c.—It is
doubtful whether the greater number of the above complex states of mind
are revealed by any fixed expression, sufficiently distinct to be
described or delineated. When Shakspeare speaks of Envy as lean-faced,
or black, or pale, and Jealousy as “the green-eyed
monster;” and when Spenser describes Suspicion as “foul,
ill-favoured, and grim,” they must have felt this difficulty.
Nevertheless, the above feelings—at least many of them—can be
detected by the eye; for instance, conceit; but we are often guided in a
much greater degree than we suppose by our previous knowledge of the
persons or circumstances.

My correspondents almost unanimously answer in the affirmative to my
query, whether the expression of guilt and deceit can be recognized
amongst the various races of man; and I have confidence in their answers,
as they generally deny that jealousy can thus be recognized. In the cases
in which details are given, the eyes are almost always referred to. The
guilty man is said to avoid looking at his accuser, or to give him stolen
looks. The eyes are said “to be turned askant,” or “to waver from side to
side,” or “the eyelids to be lowered and partly closed.” This latter
remark is made by Mr. Hagenauer with respect to the Australians, and by
Gaika with respect to the Kafirs. The restless movements of the eyes
apparently follow, as will be explained when we treat of blushing, from
the guilty man not enduring to meet the gaze of his accuser. I may add,
that I have observed a guilty expression, without a shade of fear, in some
of my own children at a very early age. In one instance the expression was
unmistakably clear in a child two years and seven months old, and led to
the detection of his little crime. It was shown, as I record in my notes
made at the time, by an unnatural brightness in the eyes, and by an odd,
affected manner, impossible to describe.

Slyness is also, I believe, exhibited chiefly by movements about the eyes;
for these are less under the control of the will, owing to the force of
long-continued habit, than are the movements of the body. Mr. Herbert
Spencer remarks,[1112] “When there is a desire to see something
on one side of the visual field without being supposed to see it, the
tendency is to check the conspicuous movement of the head, and to make the
required adjustment entirely with the eyes; which are, therefore, drawn
very much to one side. Hence, when the eyes are turned to one side, while
the face is not turned to the same side, we get the natural language of
what is called slyness.”

Of all the above-named complex emotions, Pride, perhaps, is the most
plainly expressed. A proud man exhibits his sense of superiority over
others by holding his head and body erect. He is haughty (haut), or
high, and makes himself appear as large as possible; so that
metaphorically he is said to be swollen or puffed up with pride. A peacock
or a turkey-cock strutting about with puffed-up feathers, is sometimes
said to be an emblem of pride.[1113] The arrogant man
looks down on others, and with lowered eyelids hardly condescends to see
them; or he may show his contempt by slight movements, such as those
before described, about the nostrils or lips. Hence the muscle which
everts the lower lip has been called the musculus superbus. In some
photographs of patients affected by a monomania of pride, sent me by Dr.
Crichton Browne, the head and body were held erect, and the mouth firmly
closed. This latter action, expressive of decision, follows, I presume,
from the proud man feeling perfect self-confidence in himself. The whole
expression of pride stands in direct antithesis to that of humility; so
that nothing need here be said of the latter state of mind.

Helplessness, Impotence: Shrugging the shoulders.—When a man
wishes to show that he cannot do something, or prevent something being
done, he often raises with a quick movement both shoulders. At the same
time, if the whole gesture is completed, he bends his elbows closely
inwards, raises his open hands, turning them outwards, with the fingers
separated. The head is often thrown a little on one side; the eyebrows are
elevated, and this causes wrinkles across the forehead. The mouth is
generally opened. I may mention, in order to show how unconsciously the
features are thus acted on, that though I had often intentionally shrugged
my shoulders to observe how my arms were placed, I was not at all aware
that my eyebrows were raised and mouth opened, until I looked at myself in
a glass; and since then I have noticed the same movements in the faces of
others. In the accompanying Plate VI., figs. 3 and 4, Mr. Rejlander has
successfully acted the gesture of shrugging the shoulders.

Englishmen are much less demonstrative than the men of most other European
nations, and they shrug their shoulders far less frequently and
energetically than Frenchmen or Italians do. The gesture varies in all
degrees from the complex movement, just described, to only a momentary and
scarcely perceptible raising of both shoulders; or, as I have noticed in a
lady sitting in an arm-chair, to the mere turning slightly outwards of the
open hands with separated fingers. I have never seen very young English
children shrug their shoulders, but the following case was observed with
care by a medical professor and excellent observer, and has been
communicated to me by him. The father of this gentleman was a Parisian,
and his mother a Scotch lady. His wife is of British extraction on both
sides, and my informant does not believe that she ever shrugged her
shoulders in her life. His children have been reared in England, and the
nursemaid is a thorough Englishwoman, who has never been seen to shrug her
shoulders. Now, his eldest daughter was observed to shrug her shoulders at
the age of between sixteen and eighteen months; her mother exclaiming at
the time, “Look at the little French girl shrugging her shoulders!” At
first she often acted thus, sometimes throwing her head a little backwards
and on one side, but she did not, as far as was observed, move her elbows
and hands in the usual manner. The habit gradually wore away, and now,
when she is a little over four years old, she is never seen to act thus.
The father is told that he sometimes shrugs his shoulders, especially when
arguing with any one; but it is extremely improbable that his daughter
should have imitated him at so early an age; for, as he remarks, she could
not possibly have often seen this gesture in him. Moreover, if the habit
had been acquired through imitation, it is not probable that it would so
soon have been spontaneously discontinued by this child, and, as we shall
immediately see, by a second child, though the father still lived with his
family. This little girl, it may be added, resembles her Parisian
grandfather in countenance to an almost absurd degree. She also presents
another and very curious resemblance to him, namely, by practising a
singular trick. When she impatiently wants something, she holds out her
little hand, and rapidly rubs the thumb against the index and middle
finger: now this same trick was frequently performed under the same
circumstances by her grandfather.

This gentleman’s second daughter also shrugged her shoulders before the
age of eighteen months, and afterwards discontinued the habit. It is of
course possible that she may have imitated her elder sister; but she
continued it after her sister had lost the habit. She at first resembled
her Parisian grandfather in a less degree than did her sister at the same
age, but now in a greater degree. She likewise practises to the present
time the peculiar habit of rubbing together, when impatient, her thumb and
two of her fore-fingers.

In this latter case we have a good instance, like those given in a former
chapter, of the inheritance of a trick or gesture; for no one, I presume,
will attribute to mere coincidence so peculiar a habit as this, which was
common to the grandfather and his two grandchildren who had never seen
him.

Considering all the circumstances with reference to these children
shrugging their shoulders, it can hardly be doubted that they have
inherited the habit from their French progenitors, although they have only
one quarter French blood in their veins, and although their grandfather
did not often shrug his shoulders. There is nothing very unusual, though
the fact is interesting, in these children having gained by inheritance a
habit during early youth, and then discontinuing it; for it is of frequent
occurrence with many kinds of animals that certain characters are retained
for a period by the young, and are then lost.

As it appeared to me at one time improbable in a high degree that so
complex a gesture as shrugging the shoulders, together with the
accompanying movements, should be innate, I was anxious to ascertain
whether the blind and deaf Laura Bridgman, who could not have learnt the
habit by imitation, practised it. And I have heard, through Dr. Innes,
from a lady who has lately had charge of her, that she does shrug her
shoulders, turn in her elbows, and raise her eyebrows in the same manner
as other people, and under the same circumstances. I was also anxious to
learn whether this gesture was practised by the various races of man,
especially by those who never have had much intercourse with Europeans. We
shall see that they act in this manner; but it appears that the gesture is
sometimes confined to merely raising or shrugging the shoulders, without
the other movements.

Mr. Scott has frequently seen this gesture in the Bengalees and Dhangars
(the latter constituting a distinct race) who are employed in the Botanic
Garden at Calcutta; when, for instance, they have declared that they could
not do some work, such as lifting a heavy weight. He ordered a Bengalee to
climb a lofty tree; but the man, with a shrug of his shoulders and a
lateral shake of his head, said he could not. Mr. Scott knowing that the
man was lazy, thought he could, and insisted on his trying. His face now
became pale, his arms dropped to his sides, his mouth and eyes were widely
opened, and again surveying the tree, he looked askant at Mr. Scott,
shrugged his shoulders, inverted his elbows, extended his open hands, and
with a few quick lateral shakes of the head declared his inability. Mr. H.
Erskine has likewise seen the natives of India shrugging their shoulders;
but he has never seen the elbows turned so much inwards as with us; and
whilst shrugging their shoulders they sometimes lay their uncrossed hands
on their breasts.

With the wild Malays of the interior of Malacca, and with the Bugis (true
Malays, though speaking a different language), Mr. Geach has often seen
this gesture. I presume that it is complete, as, in answer to my query
descriptive of the movements of the shoulders, arms, hands, and face, Mr.
Geach remarks, “it is performed in a beautiful style.” I have lost an
extract from a scientific voyage, in which shrugging the shoulders by some
natives (Micronesians) of the Caroline Archipelago in the Pacific Ocean,
was well described. Capt. Speedy informs me that the Abyssinians shrug
their shoulders but enters into no details. Mrs. Asa Gray saw an Arab
dragoman in Alexandria acting exactly as described in my query, when an
old gentleman, on whom he attended, would not go in the proper direction
which had been pointed out to him.

Mr. Washington Matthews says, in reference to the wild Indian tribes of
the western parts of the United States, “I have on a few occasions
detected men using a slight apologetic shrug, but the rest of the
demonstration which you describe I have not witnessed.” Fritz Müller
informs me that he has seen the negroes in Brazil shrugging their
shoulders; but it is of course possible that they may have learnt to do so
by imitating the Portuguese. Mrs. Barber has never seen this gesture with
the Kafirs of South Africa; and Gaika, judging from his answer, did not
even understand what was meant by my description. Mr. Swinhoe is also
doubtful about the Chinese; but he has seen them, under the circumstances
which would make us shrug our shoulders, press their right elbow against
their side, raise their eyebrows, lift up their hand with the palm
directed towards the person addressed, and shake it from right to left.
Lastly, with respect to the Australians, four of my informants answer by a
simple negative, and one by a simple affirmative. Mr. Bunnett, who has had
excellent opportunities for observation on the borders of the Colony of
Victory, also answers by a “yes,” adding that the gesture is performed “in
a more subdued and less demonstrative manner than is the case with civilized
nations.” This circumstance may account for its not having been noticed by
four of my informants.

These statements, relating to Europeans, Hindoos, the hill-tribes of
India, Malays, Micronesians, Abyssinians, Arabs, Negroes, Indians of North
America, and apparently to the Australians—many of these natives
having had scarcely any intercourse with Europeans—are sufficient to
show that shrugging the shoulders, accompanied in some cases by the other
proper movements, is a gesture natural to mankind.

This gesture implies an unintentional or unavoidable action on our own
part, or one that we cannot perform; or an action performed by another
person which we cannot prevent. It accompanies such speeches as, “It was
not my fault;” “It is impossible for me to grant this favour;” “He must
follow his own course, I cannot stop him.” Shrugging the shoulders
likewise expresses patience, or the absence of any intention to resist.
Hence the muscles which raise the shoulders are sometimes called, as I
have been informed by an artist, the patience muscles. Shylock the Jew,
says,

“Signor Antonio, many a time and oft
In the Rialto have you rated me
About my monies and usances;
Still have I borne it with a patient shrug.”
Merchant of Venice, act i. sc. 3.

Sir C. Bell has given[1114] a life-like figure of a man, who is
shrinking back from some terrible danger, and is on the point of screaming
out in abject terror. He is represented with his shoulders lifted up
almost to his ears; and this at once declares that there is no thought of
resistance.

As shrugging the shoulders generally implies “I cannot do this or that,”
so by a slight change, it sometimes implies “I won’t do it.” The movement
then expresses a dogged determination not to act. Olmsted describes[1115]
an Indian in Texas as giving a great shrug to his shoulders, when he was
informed that a party of men were Germans and not Americans, thus
expressing that he would have nothing to do with them. Sulky and obstinate
children may be seen with both their shoulders raised high up; but this
movement is not associated with the others which generally accompany a
true shrug. An excellent observer[1116] in describing a
young man who was determined not to yield to his father’s desire, says,
“He thrust his hands deep down into his pockets, and set up his shoulders
to his ears, which was a good warning that, come right or wrong, this rock
should fly from its firm base as soon as Jack would; and that any
remonstrance on the subject was purely futile.” As soon as the son got his
own way, he “put his shoulders into their natural position.”

Resignation is sometimes shown by the open hands being placed, one over
the other, on the lower part of the body. I should not have thought this
little gesture worth even a passing notice, had not Dr. W. Ogle remarked
to me that he had two or three times observed it in patients who were
preparing for operations under chloroform. They exhibited no great fear,
but seemed to declare by this posture of their hands, that they had made
up their minds, and were resigned to the inevitable.

We may now inquire why men in all parts of the world when they feel,—whether
or not they wish to show this feeling,—that they cannot or will not
do something, or will not resist something if done by another, shrug their
shoulders, at the same time often bending in their elbows, showing the
palms of their hands with extended fingers, often throwing their heads a
little on one side, raising their eyebrows, and opening their mouths.
These states of the mind are either simply passive, or show a
determination not to act. None of the above movements are of the least
service. The explanation lies, I cannot doubt, in the principle of
unconscious antithesis. This principle here seems to come into play as
clearly as in the case of a dog, who, when feeling savage, puts himself in
the proper attitude for attacking and for making himself appear terrible
to his enemy; but as soon as he feels affectionate, throws his whole body
into a directly opposite attitude, though this is of no direct use to him.

Let it be observed how an indignant man, who resents, and will not submit
to some injury, holds his head erect, squares his shoulders, and expands
his chest. He often clenches his fists, and puts one or both arms in the
proper position for attack or defence, with the muscles of his limbs
rigid. He frowns,—that is, he contracts and lowers his brows,—and,
being determined, closes his mouth. The actions and attitude of a helpless
man are, in every one of these respects, exactly the reverse. In Plate VI.
we may imagine one of the figures on the left side to have just said,
“What do you mean by insulting me?” and one of the figures on the right
side to answer, “I really could not help it.” The helpless man
unconsciously contracts the muscles of his forehead which are antagonistic
to those that cause a frown, and thus raises his eyebrows; at the same
time he relaxes the muscles about the mouth, so that the lower jaw drops.
The antithesis is complete in every detail, not only in the movements of
the features, but in the position of the limbs and in the attitude of the
whole body, as may be seen in the accompanying plate. As the helpless or
apologetic man often wishes to show his state of mind, he then acts in a
conspicuous or demonstrative manner.

In accordance with the fact that squaring the elbows and clenching the
fists are gestures by no means universal with the men of all races, when
they feel indignant and are prepared to attack their enemy, so it appears
that a helpless or apologetic frame of mind is expressed in many parts of
the world by merely shrugging the shoulders, without turning inwards the
elbows and opening the hands. The man or child who is obstinate, or one
who is resigned to some great misfortune, has in neither case any idea of
resistance by active means; and he expresses this state of mind, by simply
keeping his shoulders raised; or he may possibly fold his arms across his
breast.

Signs of affirmation or approval, and of negation or disapproval:
nodding and shaking the head.—I was curious to ascertain how far
the common signs used by us in affirmation and negation were general
throughout the world. These signs are indeed to a certain extent
expressive of our feelings, as we give a vertical nod of approval with a
smile to our children, when we approve of their conduct; and shake our
heads laterally with a frown, when we disapprove. With infants, the first
act of denial consists in refusing food; and I repeatedly noticed with my
own infants, that they did so by withdrawing their heads laterally from
the breast, or from anything offered them in a spoon. In accepting food
and taking it into their mouths, they incline their heads forwards. Since
making these observations I have been informed that the same idea had
occurred to Charma.[1117] It deserves notice that in accepting or
taking food, there is only a single movement forward, and a single nod
implies an affirmation. On the other hand, in refusing food, especially if
it be pressed on them, children frequently move their heads several times
from side to side, as we do in shaking our heads in negation. Moreover, in
the case of refusal, the head is not rarely thrown backwards, or the mouth
is closed, so that these movements might likewise come to serve as signs
of negation. Mr. Wedgwood remarks on this subject,[1118] that “when the
voice is exerted with closed teeth or lips, it produces the sound of the
letter n or m. Hence we may account for the use of the
particle ne to signify negation, and possibly also of the Greek mh
in the same sense.”

That these signs are innate or instinctive, at least with Anglo-Saxons, is
rendered highly probable by the blind and deaf Laura Bridgman “constantly
accompanying her yes with the common affirmative nod, and her no
with our negative shake of the head.” Had not Mr. Lieber stated to the
contrary,[1119] I should have imagined that these
gestures might have been acquired or learnt by her, considering her
wonderful sense of touch and appreciation of the movements of others. With
microcephalous idiots, who are so degraded that they never learn to speak,
one of them is described by Vogt,[1120] as answering,
when asked whether he wished for more food or drink, by inclining or
shaking his head. Schmalz, in his remarkable dissertation on the education
of the deaf and dumb, as well as of children raised only one degree above
idiotcy, assumes that they can always both make and understand the common
signs of affirmation and negation.[1121]

Nevertheless if we look to the various races of man, these signs are not
so universally employed as I should have expected; yet they seem too
general to be ranked as altogether conventional or artificial. My
informants assert that both signs are used by the Malays, by the natives
of Ceylon, the Chinese, the negroes of the Guinea coast, and, according to
Gaika, by the Kafirs of South Africa, though with these latter people Mrs.
Barber has never seen a lateral shake used as a negative. With respect to
the Australians, seven observers agree that a nod is given in affirmation;
five agree about a lateral shake in negation, accompanied or not by some
word; but Mr. Dyson Lacy has never seen this latter sign in Queensland,
and Mr. Bulmer says that in Gipps’ Land a negative is expressed by
throwing the head a little backwards and putting out the tongue. At the
northern extremity of the continent, near Torres Straits, the natives when
uttering a negative “don’t shake the head with it, but holding up the
right hand, shake it by turning it half round and back again two or three
times.”[1122] The throwing back of the head with a
cluck of the tongue is said to be used as a negative by the modern Greeks
and Turks, the latter people expressing yes by a movement like that
made by us when we shake our heads.[1123] The Abyssinians,
as I am informed by Captain Speedy, express a negative by jerking the head
to the right shoulder, together with a slight cluck, the mouth being
closed; an affirmation is expressed by the head being thrown backwards and
the eyebrows raised for an instant. The Tagals of Luzon, in the Philippine
Archipelago, as I hear from Dr. Adolf Meyer, when they say “yes,” also
throw the head backwards. According to the Rajah Brooke, the Dyaks of
Borneo express an affirmation by raising the eyebrows, and a negation by
slightly contracting them, together with a peculiar look from the eyes.
With the Arabs on the Nile, Professor and Mrs. Asa Gray concluded that
nodding in affirmation was rare, whilst shaking the head in negation was
never used, and was not even understood by them. With the Esquimaux[1124]
a nod means yes and a wink no. The New Zealanders “elevate
the head and chin in place of nodding acquiescence.”[1125]

With the Hindoos Mr. H. Erskine concludes from inquiries made from
experienced Europeans, and from native gentlemen, that the signs of
affirmation and negation vary—a nod and a lateral shake being
sometimes used as we do; but a negative is more commonly expressed by the
head being thrown suddenly backwards and a little to one side, with a
cluck of the tongue. What the meaning may be of this cluck of the tongue,
which has been observed with various people, I cannot imagine. A native
gentleman stated that affirmation is frequently shown by the head being
thrown to the left. I asked Mr. Scott to attend particularly to this
point, and, after repeated observations, he believes that a vertical nod
is not commonly used by the natives in affirmation, but that the head is
first thrown backwards either to the left or right, and then jerked
obliquely forwards only once. This movement would perhaps have been
described by a less careful observer as a lateral shake. He also states
that in negation the head is usually held nearly upright, and shaken
several times.

Mr. Bridges informs me that the Fuegians nod their heads vertically in
affirmation, and shake them laterally in denial. With the wild Indians of
North America, according to Mr. Washington Matthews, nodding and shaking
the head have been learnt from Europeans, and are not naturally employed.
They express affirmation by describing with the hand (all the fingers
except the index being flexed) a curve downwards and outwards from the
body, whilst negation is expressed by moving the open hand outwards, with
the palm facing inwards. Other observers state that the sign of
affirmation with these Indians is the forefinger being raised, and then
lowered and pointed to the ground, or the hand is waved straight forward
from the face; and that the sign of negation is the finger or whole hand
shaken from side to side.[1126] This latter movement probably represents
in all cases the lateral shaking of the head. The Italians are said in
like manner to move the lifted finger from right to left in negation, as
indeed we English sometimes do.

On the whole we find considerable diversity in the signs of affirmation
and negation in the different races of man. With respect to negation, if
we admit that the shaking of the finger or hand from side to side is
symbolic of the lateral movement of the head; and if we admit that the
sudden backward movement of the head represents one of the actions often
practised by young children in refusing food, then there is much
uniformity throughout the world in the signs of negation, and we can see
how they originated. The most marked exceptions are presented by the
Arabs, Esquimaux, some Australian tribes, and Dyaks. With the latter a
frown is the sign of negation, and with us frowning often accompanies a
lateral shake of the head.

With respect to nodding in affirmation, the exceptions are rather more
numerous, namely with some of the Hindoos, with the Turks, Abyssinians,
Dyaks, Tagals, and New Zealanders. The eyebrows are sometimes raised in
affirmation, and as a person in bending his head forwards and downwards
naturally looks up to the person whom he addresses, he will be apt to
raise his eyebrows, and this sign may thus have arisen as an abbreviation.
So again with the New Zealanders, the lifting up the chin and head in
affirmation may perhaps represent in an abbreviated form the upward
movement of the head after it has been nodded forwards and downwards.