[ r 3 1 
right Line over it from the frontal Bone : But the 
Motion of the Orbicularis , which is often compared 
to a Sphincter , is more difficult to underhand, and 
yet (lightly pafs’d by without any Notice. Mr. Cow- 
per only fays, This Mufcle, a&inglike the Sphincters 
of other Parts, conhringes the Eye-lids ; and this feems 
the general Notion of all Anatomifts. Let us, however, 
attempt to explain this moil wife Contrivance for the 
Motion of the Eye-lids, in the following Manner s 
XX. 
We may very fecurely affirm, that there is no Ana- 
logy between a SphinEter and the Falpebram Occlu - 
dens (for fo we (hall venture to call it for the future]. 
For, altho" there is an Appearance of a circular Di- 
rection of the Fibres, above and below the Eye-lids, 
in the expanded Part or Orbicularis , yet the Fibres 
upon the Eye-lids themfeives have no fuch Appear- 
ance: They have Attachments to the Cant bus on 
each Side, and the Direction of their mufcular Fibres 
is, in feme meafure, parallel to the Lids, tho J up- 
wards lomewhat curved 5 otherwife the upper Lid 
would not be capable of (hutting down upon the 
under 5 for it is this Lid alone that is lifted up from 
the under, the latter having no need of a Mufcle to 
draw it down, but is naturally confined below the 
Convexity of the Globe of the Eye, and is never ca- 
pable of palling up even to the equatorial Point with 
its ciliary Edge s whereas any one may obferve, that 
the ciliary Edge of the upper Lid (in (hutting the 
Eye) is carried down far below that Point 5 and, 
flraitning itfelf below the Convexity, forms a perfect 
concave 
