FORM

Of the beauty of the eye as conditioned by its form, Dr. Magnus has made

such an admirable and exhaustive analysis that I can do little more than

summarise his observations. He points out, in the first place, that the

form of the eyeball itself is of subordinate importance. The differences

in the size and shape of eyeballs are insignificant, and are, moreover,

liable to be concealed by the shape of the eyelids; hence it is to the

lids and brows that the eye chiefly owes its formal beauty.

“The form of the eye is conditioned exclusively by the cut of the lids

and the size of the aperture between them.... The countless individual

differences in this aperture give to the eyeballs the most diverse

shapes, so that we speak of round eyes, wide eyes, almond-shaped,

elongated, and owl eyes, etc.”

The first condition of beauty in an eye is size. Large eyes have been

extolled ever since the beginnings of poetry. The Mahometan heaven is

peopled with “virgins with chaste mien and large black eyes,” and the

Arabian poets never tire of comparing their idols’ eyes to those of the

gazelle and the deer. The Greeks appear to have considered large eyes an

essential trait of beauty as well as of mental superiority; hence

Sokrates as well as Aspasia are described as having had such eyes; and

who has not read of Homer’s ox-eyed Juno? Juvenal specially mentions

small eyes as a blemish.

Large eyes, however, are not beautiful if the aperture between the lids

is too wide, or if the white can be seen above the iris. They must owe

their largeness to the graceful curvature of the upper eyelid. As

Winckelmann remarks, “Jupiter, Apollo, and Juno have the opening of

their eyelids large and vaulted, and less elongated than is usual, so as

to make the arch more pronounced.”

At the same time we are sufficiently catholic in taste to admire eyes

which are not quite round but somewhat elongated. One favourite variety

is that in which “the upper lid shows, in the margin adjoining the inner

corner of the eye, a rather decided curvature, which, however,

diminishes toward the outer corner in an extremely graceful and pleasing

wavy line. As the lower lid has a similar, though less decided, marginal

curve, the eyeball which appears within this aperture assumes a unique

oval form, which has been very aptly and characteristically named

‘almond-shaped.’ The Greeks compared the graceful curve of such lids to

the delicate and pleasing loops formed by young vines, and therefore

called an eye of this variety ἑλικοβλέφαρος. Winckelmann has noted that

it was the eyes of Venus, in particular, that the ancient artists were

fond of adorning with this graceful curve of the lids.... Italian, and

especially Spanish eyes, are far-famed for their classical and graceful

oval form.”

Almond eyes are peculiar to the Semitic and ancient Aryan races. Some of

the bards of India sing the praises of an eye so elongated that it

reaches to the ear; and in Assyrian statues such eyes are common. The

ancient Egyptians had a similar taste; and Carus relates that some

Oriental nations actually enlarge the slit of the eye with the knife;

while others use cosmetics to simulate the appearance of very long eyes.

According to Dr. Sömmering, the eye of male Europeans is somewhat less

elongated than that of females.

Round or oval marginal curvature, however, is not the only condition of

beauty in an eyelid. The surface, too, must be kept in a tense,

well-rounded condition. Sunken, hollow eyes displease us not only

because they suggest disease and age, but because they destroy the

smooth surface and curvature of the eyelids. Thus do we find the laws of

Health and Beauty coinciding in the smallest details.

The position of the eye also largely influences our æsthetic judgment.

What strikes us first in looking at a Chinaman is his obliquely-set

eyes, with the outer corner drawn upwards, which displeases us even more

than their excessive elongation and small size. Oblique eyes are a

dissonance in the harmony of our features, and almost as objectionable

as a crooked mouth. True, our own eyes are rarely absolutely horizontal,

but the deviation is too minute to be noticed by any but a trained

observer. Sometimes, as Mantegazza remarks, the opposite form may be

noticed, the outer corner of the eye being lower than the inner. “If

this trait is associated with other æsthetic elements, it may produce a

rare and extraordinary charm, as in the case of the Empress Eugénie.”

The eyelashes and eyebrows, though strictly belonging in the chapter on

the hair, must be referred to here because they bear such a large part

in the impression which the form of the eye makes on us. The short,

stiff hairs, which form “the fringed curtain of the eye,” are attached

to the cartilage which edges the eyelids. They are not straight but

curved, downward in the lower, upward in the upper lid. And the

Beauty-Curve is observed in still another way, the hairs in the central

part of each lid being longer than they are towards the ends. In the

upper lid the hairs are longer than in the lower. Their æsthetic and

physiognomic value will be considered presently under the head of

Expression.

In the eyebrows the Curve of Beauty is again the condition of

perfection. It must be a gentle curve, however, or else it imparts to

the countenance a Mephistophelian expression of irony. Eyebrows were

formerly held to be peculiar to man, but Darwin states that “in the

Chimpanzee, and in certain species of Macacus, there are scattered hairs

of considerable length rising from the naked skin above the eyes, and

corresponding to our eyebrows; similar long hairs project from the hairy

covering of the superciliary ridges in some baboons.”

The existence of the eyebrows may be accounted for on utilitarian

grounds. Natural Selection favoured their development because they are,

like the lashes, of use in preventing perspiration and dust from getting

into the eyes. Their delicately curved form, however, they probably owe

to Sexual Selection. Cupid objects to eyebrows which are too much or not

sufficiently arched, and he objects to those which are too bushy or

which meet in the middle. The ancient Greeks already disliked eyebrows

meeting in the middle, whereas in Rome Fashion not only approved of

them, but even resorted to artificial means for producing them. The

Arabians go a step farther in the use of paint. They endeavour to

produce the impression as if their eyebrows grew down to the middle of

the nose and met there. The Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, and Indians

also used paint to make their eyebrows seem wider, but they did not

unite them. On the outside border the eyebrows should extend slightly

beyond the corner of the eye.