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.

[12] `Anatomy of Expression,' 3rd edit. pp. 98, 121, 131.

[13] Professor Owen expressly states (Proc. Zoolog. Soc. 1830, p.