The debate with the pantomime at the turn of the nineteenth century is indeed accessory in the development of the Decroux's doctrine. Criticising pantomime for being more talkative than speaking actor, he does not build a doctrine. Rather he distinguishes his doctrine form a possible misunderstanding. That is why his criticism of the pantomime is always so pity. Dercroux indeed rather observes the human body in situations of acting and feeling rather than in situations of verbal or para-verbal communication. He never comes to consider that there is something like a natural human expressiveness carrying the sense of human mouvement and enabling the establishment of a language with determined and fixed signs. He is forced therefore to accept that there is a kind of primal ability of the living being to perceive and share movements and their qualities. Decroux cuts short an anthropological debate: against the supporters of a natural and/or universal language of gestures, he decided resolutely to analyse the emotion in terms of meaningless elements and observe the construction of meaning in composition.