1872.] 'EXPRESSION OF THE EMOTIONS.' 351 



grasp your principle of spontaneity,* as well as some other of 

 your points, so as to apply them to special cases. But as we 

 look at everything from different points of view, it is not likely 

 that we should agree closely. 



I have been greatly pleased by what you say about the 

 crying expression and about blushing. Did you read a re- 

 view in a late ' Edinburgh ? ' f It was magnificently contempt- 

 uous towards myself and many others. 



I retain a very pleasant recollection of our sojourn together 

 at that delightful place, Moor Park. 



With my renewed thanks, I remain, my dear Sir, 



Yours sincerely, 



Ch. Darwin. 



* Professor Bain expounded his theory of Spontaneity in the essay 

 here alluded to. It would be impossible to do justice to it within the 

 limits of a foot-note. The following quotations may give some notion 

 of it :— 



" By Spontaneity I understand the readiness to pass into movement in 

 the absence of all stimulation whatever ; the essential requisite being that 



the nerve-centres and muscles shall be fresh and vigorous The 



gesticulations and the carols of young and active animals are mere overflow 

 of nervous energy ; and although they are very apt to concur with pleasing 



emotion, they have an independent source They are not properly 



movements of expression ; they express nothing at all except an abundant 

 stock of physical power." 



f The review on the ' Expression of the Emotions ' appeared in the 

 April number of the ' Edinburgh Review,' 1873. The opening sentence is 

 a fair sample of the general tone of the article : "Mr. Darwin has added 

 another volume of amusing stories and grotesque illustrations to the re- 

 markable series of works already devoted to the exposition and defence of 

 the evolutionary hypothesis." A few other quotations may be worth giv- 

 ing. " His one-sided devotion to an a priori scheme of interpretation 

 seems thus steadily tending to impair the author's hitherto unrivalled pow- 

 ers as an observer. However this may be, most impartial critics will, we 

 think, admit that there is a marked falling off both in philosophical tone 

 and scientific interest in the works produced since Mr. Darwin committed 

 himself to the crude metaphysical conception so largely associated with 

 his name." The article is directed against Evolution as a whole, almost 

 as much as against the doctrines of the book under discussion. We find 

 throughout plenty of that effective style of criticism which consists in the 



