Chapter II — GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF EXPRESSION—continued

The Principle of Antithesis—Instances in the dog and cat—Origin
of the principle—Conventional signs—The principle of
antithesis has not arisen from opposite actions being consciously
performed under opposite impulses.

We will now consider our second Principle, that of Antithesis. Certain
states of the mind lead, as we have seen in the last chapter, to certain
habitual movements which were primarily, or may still be, of service; and
we shall find that when a directly opposite state of mind is induced,
there is a strong and involuntary tendency to the performance of movements
of a directly opposite nature, though these have never been of any
service. A few striking instances of antithesis will be given, when we
treat of the special expressions of man; but as, in these cases, we are
particularly liable to confound conventional or artificial gestures and
expressions with those which are innate or universal, and which alone
deserve to rank as true expressions, I will in the present chapter almost
confine myself to the lower animals.

When a dog approaches a strange dog or man in a savage or hostile frame of
mind be walks upright and very stiffly; his head is slightly raised, or
not much lowered; the tail is held erect, and quite rigid; the hairs
bristle, especially along the neck and back; the pricked ears are directed
forwards, and the eyes have a fixed stare: (see figs. 5 and 7). These
actions, as will hereafter be explained, follow from the dog’s intention
to attack his enemy, and are thus to a large extent intelligible. As he
prepares to spring with a savage growl on his enemy, the canine teeth are
uncovered, and the ears are pressed close backwards on the head; but with
these latter actions, we are not here concerned. Let us now suppose that
the dog suddenly discovers that the man he is approaching, is not a
stranger, but his master; and let it be observed how completely and
instantaneously his whole bearing is reversed. Instead of walking upright,
the body sinks downwards or even crouches, and is thrown into flexuous
movements; his tail, instead of being held stiff and upright, is lowered
and wagged from side to side; his hair instantly becomes smooth; his ears
are depressed and drawn backwards, but not closely to the head; and his
lips hang loosely. From the drawing back of the ears, the eyelids become
elongated, and the eyes no longer appear round and staring. It should be
added that the animal is at such times in an excited condition from joy;
and nerve-force will be generated in excess, which naturally leads to
action of some kind. Not one of the above movements, so clearly expressive
of affection, are of the least direct service to the animal. They are
explicable, as far as I can see, solely from being in complete opposition
or antithesis to the attitude and movements which, from intelligible
causes, are assumed when a dog intends to fight, and which consequently
are expressive of anger. I request the reader to look at the four
accompanying sketches, which have been given in order to recall vividly
the appearance of a dog under these two states of mind. It is, however,
not a little difficult to represent affection in a dog, whilst caressing
his master and wagging his tail, as the essence of the expression lies in
the continuous flexuous movements.

We will now turn to the cat. When this animal is threatened by a dog, it
arches its back in a surprising manner, erects its hair, opens its mouth
and spits. But we are not here concerned with this well-known attitude,
expressive of terror combined with anger; we are concerned only with that
of rage or anger. This is not often seen, but may be observed when two
cats are fighting together; and I have seen it well exhibited by a savage
cat whilst plagued by a boy. The attitude is almost exactly the same as
that of a tiger disturbed and growling over its food, which every one must
have beheld in menageries. The animal assumes a crouching position, with
the body extended; and the whole tail, or the tip alone, is lashed or
curled from side to side. The hair is not in the least erect. Thus far,
the attitude and movements are nearly the same as when the animal is
prepared to spring on its prey, and when, no doubt, it feels savage. But
when preparing to fight, there is this difference, that the ears are
closely pressed backwards; the mouth is partially opened, showing the
teeth; the fore feet are occasionally struck out with protruded claws; and
the animal occasionally utters a fierce growl. (See figs. 9 and 10.) All,
or almost all these actions naturally follow (as hereafter to be
explained), from the cat’s manner and intention of attacking its enemy.

Let us now look at a cat in a directly opposite frame of mind, whilst
feeling affectionate and caressing her master; and mark how opposite is
her attitude in every respect. She now stands upright with her back
slightly arched, which makes the hair appear rather rough, but it does not
bristle; her tail, instead of being extended and lashed from side to side,
is held quite still and perpendicularly upwards; her ears are erect and
pointed; her mouth is closed; and she rubs against her master with a purr
instead of a growl. Let it further be observed how widely different is the
whole bearing of an affectionate cat from that of a dog, when with his
body crouching and flexuous, his tail lowered and wagging, and ears
depressed, he caresses his master. This contrast in the attitudes and
movements of these two carnivorous animals, under the same pleased and
affectionate frame of mind, can be explained, as it appears to me, solely
by their movements standing in complete antithesis to those which are
naturally assumed, when these animals feel savage and are prepared either
to fight or to seize their prey.

In these cases of the dog and cat, there is every reason to believe that
the gestures both of hostility and affection are innate or inherited; for
they are almost identically the same in the different races of the
species, and in all the individuals of the same race, both young and old.

I will here give one other instance of antithesis in expression. I
formerly possessed a large dog, who, like every other dog, was much
pleased to go out walking. He showed his pleasure by trotting gravely
before me with high steps, head much raised, moderately erected ears, and
tail carried aloft but not stiffly. Not far from my house a path branches
off to the right, leading to the hot-house, which I used often to visit
for a few moments, to look at my experimental plants. This was always a
great disappointment to the dog, as he did not know whether I should
continue my walk; and the instantaneous and complete change of expression
which came over him as soon as my body swerved in the least towards the
path (and I sometimes tried this as an experiment) was laughable. His look
of dejection was known to every member of the family, and was called his
hot-house face. This consisted in the head drooping much, the whole
body sinking a little and remaining motionless; the ears and tail falling
suddenly down, but the tail was by no means wagged. With the falling of
the ears and of his great chaps, the eyes became much changed in
appearance, and I fancied that they looked less bright. His aspect was
that of piteous, hopeless dejection; and it was, as I have said,
laughable, as the cause was so slight. Every detail in his attitude was in
complete opposition to his former joyful yet dignified bearing; and can be
explained, as it appears to me, in no other way, except through the
principle of antithesis. Had not the change been so instantaneous, I
should have attributed it to his lowered spirits affecting, as in the case
of man, the nervous system and circulation, and consequently the tone of
his whole muscular frame; and this may have been in part the cause.

We will now consider how the principle of antithesis in expression has
arisen. With social animals, the power of intercommunication between the
members of the same community,—and with other species, between the
opposite sexes, as well as between the young and the old,—is of the
highest importance to them. This is generally effected by means of the
voice, but it is certain that gestures and expressions are to a certain
extent mutually intelligible. Man not only uses inarticulate cries,
gestures, and expressions, but has invented articulate language; if,
indeed, the word INVENTED can be applied to a process, completed by
innumerable steps, half-consciously made. Any one who has watched monkeys
will not doubt that they perfectly understand each other’s gestures and
expression, and to a large extent, as Rengger asserts,[201]
those of man. An animal when going to attack another, or when afraid of
another, often makes itself appear terrible, by erecting its hair, thus
increasing the apparent bulk of its body, by showing its teeth, or
brandishing its horns, or by uttering fierce sounds.

As the power of intercommunication is certainly of high service to many
animals, there is no à priori improbability in the supposition,
that gestures manifestly of an opposite nature to those by which certain
feelings are already expressed, should at first have been voluntarily
employed under the influence of an opposite state of feeling. The fact of
the gestures being now innate, would be no valid objection to the belief
that they were at first intentional; for if practised during many
generations, they would probably at last be inherited. Nevertheless it is
more than doubtful, as we shall immediately see, whether any of the cases
which come under our present head of antithesis, have thus originated.

With conventional signs which are not innate, such as those used by the
deaf and dumb and by savages, the principle of opposition or antithesis
has been partially brought into play. The Cistercian monks thought it
sinful to speak, and as they could not avoid holding some communication,
they invented a gesture language, in which the principle of opposition
seems to have been employed.[202] Dr. Scott, of the Exeter Deaf and Dumb
Institution, writes to me that “opposites are greatly used in teaching the
deaf and dumb, who have a lively sense of them.” Nevertheless I have been
surprised how few unequivocal instances can be adduced. This depends
partly on all the signs having commonly had some natural origin; and
partly on the practice of the deaf and dumb and of savages to contract
their signs as much as possible for the sake of rapidity.[203]
Hence their natural source or origin often becomes doubtful or is
completely lost; as is likewise the case with articulate language.

Many signs, moreover, which plainly stand in opposition to each other,
appear to have had on both sides a significant origin. This seems to hold
good with the signs used by the deal and dumb for light and darkness, for
strength and weakness, &c. In a future chapter I shall endeavour to
show that the opposite gestures of affirmation and negation, namely,
vertically nodding and laterally shaking the head, have both probably had
a natural beginning. The waving of the hand from right to left, which is
used as a negative by some savages, may have been invented in imitation of
shaking the head; but whether the opposite movement of waving the hand in
a straight line from the face, which is used in affirmation, has arisen
through antithesis or in some quite distinct manner, is doubtful.

If we now turn to the gestures which are innate or common to all the
individuals of the same species, and which come under the present head of
antithesis, it is extremely doubtful, whether any of them were at first
deliberately invented and consciously performed. With mankind the best
instance of a gesture standing in direct opposition to other movements,
naturally assumed under an opposite frame of mind, is that of shrugging
the shoulders. This expresses impotence or an apology,—something
which cannot be done, or cannot be avoided. The gesture is sometimes used
consciously and voluntarily, but it is extremely improbable that it was at
first deliberately invented, and afterwards fixed by habit; for not only
do young children sometimes shrug their shoulders under the above states
of mind, but the movement is accompanied, as will be shown in a future
chapter, by various subordinate movements, which not one man in a thousand
is aware of, unless he has specially attended to the subject.

Dogs when approaching a strange dog, may find it useful to show by their
movements that they are friendly, and do not wish to fight. When two young
dogs in play are growling and biting each other’s faces and legs, it is
obvious that they mutually understand each other’s gestures and manners.
There seems, indeed, some degree of instinctive knowledge in puppies and
kittens, that they must not use their sharp little teeth or claws too
freely in their play, though this sometimes happens and a squeal is the
result; otherwise they would often injure each other’s eyes. When my
terrier bites my hand in play, often snarling at the same time, if he
bites too hard and I say GENTLY, GENTLY, he goes on biting, but answers me
by a few wags of the tail, which seems to say “Never mind, it is all fun.”
Although dogs do thus express, and may wish to express, to other dogs and
to man, that they are in a friendly state of mind, it is incredible that
they could ever have deliberately thought of drawing back and depressing
their ears, instead of holding them erect,—of lowering and wagging
their tails, instead of keeping them stiff and upright, &c., because
they knew that these movements stood in direct opposition to those assumed
under an opposite and savage frame of mind.

Again, when a cat, or rather when some early progenitor of the species,
from feeling affectionate first slightly arched its back, held its tail
perpendicularly upwards and pricked its ears, can it be believed that the
animal consciously wished thus to show that its frame of mind was directly
the reverse of that, when from being ready to fight or to spring on its
prey, it assumed a crouching attitude, curled its tail from side to side
and depressed its ears? Even still less can I believe that my dog
voluntarily put on his dejected attitude and “hot-house face,”
which formed so complete a contrast to his previous cheerful attitude and
whole bearing. It cannot be supposed that he knew that I should understand
his expression, and that he could thus soften my heart and make me give up
visiting the hot-house.

Hence for the development of the movements which come under the present
head, some other principle, distinct from the will and consciousness, must
have intervened. This principle appears to be that every movement which we
have voluntarily performed throughout our lives has required the action of
certain muscles; and when we have performed a directly opposite movement,
an opposite set of muscles has been habitually brought into play,—as
in turning to the right or to the left, in pushing away or pulling an
object towards us, and in lifting or lowering a weight. So strongly are
our intentions and movements associated together, that if we eagerly wish
an object to move in any direction, we can hardly avoid moving our bodies
in the same direction, although we may be perfectly aware that this can
have no influence. A good illustration of this fact has already been given
in the Introduction, namely, in the grotesque movements of a young and
eager billiard-player, whilst watching the course of his ball. A man or
child in a passion, if he tells any one in a loud voice to begone,
generally moves his arm as if to push him away, although the offender may
not be standing near, and although there may be not the least need to
explain by a gesture what is meant. On the other hand, if we eagerly
desire some one to approach us closely, we act as if pulling him towards
us; and so in innumerable other instances.

As the performance of ordinary movements of an opposite kind, under
opposite impulses of the will, has become habitual in us and in the lower
animals, so when actions of one kind have become firmly associated with
any sensation or emotion, it appears natural that actions of a directly
opposite kind, though of no use, should be unconsciously performed through
habit and association, under the influence of a directly opposite
sensation or emotion. On this principle alone can I understand how the
gestures and expressions which come under the present head of antithesis
have originated. If indeed they are serviceable to man or to any other
animal, in aid of inarticulate cries or language, they will likewise be
voluntarily employed, and the habit will thus be strengthened. But whether
or not of service as a means of communication, the tendency to perform
opposite movements under opposite sensations or emotions would, if we may
judge by analogy, become hereditary through long practice; and there
cannot be a doubt that several expressive movements due to the principle
of antithesis are inherited.