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.
Dog in a Hostile Frame of Mind. Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Dog in a Hostile Frame of Mind. Fig. 7
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.
Dog Carressing his Master. Fig. 8
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.
Cat, Savage, and Prepared to Fight. Fig. 9
Cat in an Affectionate Frame of Mind. Fig. 10
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.