{"collection":"folklore-oral-tradition","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_25887/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_25887","id":"gutenberg_25887","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25887","summary":null,"tags":["Animal intelligence","Animals-Domestic","Category: Nature/Gardening/Animals","Category: Psychiatry/Psychology","Dogs -- Folklore"],"text":"Produced by David Edwards and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was\nproduced from images generously made available by The\nInternet Archive/American Libraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\nLOLA\n\nor\n\nThe Thought and Speech of Animals\n\n\n\nBY\n\nHENNY KINDERMANN\n\n\n\nTRANSLATED BY AGNES BLAKE\n\n\nWITH A CHAPTER ON THINKING ANIMALS BY\n\nDR. WILLIAM MACKENZIE\n\n\n\nMETHUEN & CO. LTD.\n36 ESSEX STREET W.C.\nLONDON\n\n_First Published in this translation in 1922_\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Note: There are three mathematical \"square roots\" found\nin this text; the \"roots\" are shown as [3rt], [121rt] and [10,000rt].\nNumerals that are printed as superscript are indicated by being\npreceeded by a caret (^).\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nIt is hoped that this little work may assist in the search along the\ndark path upon which many a poet and--in later times--many an\ninvestigator has set his feet. It would not be worthy of us, whom\nscience and technical ability has raised to so high an intellectual\nposition as explorers of Nature in every field--should we neglect\nanything however trivial, deeming it as beneath our notice.\n\nWe know so much about all that lies around us: the manner in which the\ncells build our bodies; how the juices circulate within the plant. We\nfeel Nature to be ensouled, to be a spiritual entity--and yet--it is\nonly her corporeal life with which we are intimate. Therefore let us\nnow turn our eyes to new horizons, so that the human spirit may be\nin a position to extend its search, doing so with knowledge and\nunderstanding. What is imperative is that we should investigate to\nwhat degree the higher animals have been dowered with sensibility, and\nto what extent this can be utilized: whether it can crystallize--so\nto speak--into what is known to us as _thought_. My own work of\ninvestigation was undertaken in a spirit entirely devoid of prejudice;\nand what I have so far discovered I now place in the hands of the\nreader, asking him to bring the same unbiased and objective attitude of\nmind to bear when reading these pages. It is my hope that they may\narouse his interest and instil that broader attitude of thought which\nshould lead to further investigation, since a question so serious and\nimportant does not permit of being lightly set aside.\n\nI have given a short preliminary account of earlier investigations\nundertaken in this field of research, before inviting the reader to\naccompany me along the path I myself pursued into this New Land.\n\nHENNY KINDERMANN\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nCHAPTER                                                      PAGE\n\n    I. THOUGHT CAPACITY IN ANIMALS                              1\n\n        _The Dogs: Rolf_                                        5\n                  _Ilse_                                       15\n                  _Heinz_                                      18\n                  _Harras_                                     20\n                  _Roland_                                     22\n\n   II. MY PREVIOUS ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE SUBJECT               23\n\n  III. LOLA                                                    30\n\n   IV. BEGINNING THE TUITION                                   35\n\n    V. CONTINUED TUITION                                       43\n\n   VI. SENSE OF TIME                                           54\n\n  VII. CALCULATING TIME                                        59\n\n VIII. SIGHT                                                   63\n\n   IX. HER PERFECT SENSE FOR SOUND                             70\n\n    X. SCENT                                                   74\n\n   XI. SENSITIVENESS OF THE SKIN                               79\n\n  XII. FORECASTING THE WEATHER                                 84\n\n XIII. ADVANCED ARITHMETIC                                     89\n\n  XIV. WORKING WITH OTHER PERSONS                              94\n\n   XV. THE QUESTION OF POSSIBLE INFLUENCE                      97\n\n  XVI. ALTERATIONS AND MEMORY                                 102\n\n XVII. THE CONNEXION OF IDEAS                                 110\n\nXVIII. SPONTANEOUS REPLIES                                    113\n\n  XIX. WRONG AND UNCERTAIN ANSWERS                            116\n\n   XX. MATTERS WHICH, SO FAR, ARE UNACCOUNTED FOR,\n         OR UNEXPLAINED                                       120\n\n  XXI. ALTERATIONS IN CHARACTER                               122\n\n XXII. A VARIETY OF ANSWERS                                   126\n\nXXIII. ULSE'S FIRST INSTRUCTION                               144\n\n XXIV. LAST WORDS                                             149\n\n       CONCLUSION (BY PROFESSOR H. F. ZIEGLER)                152\n\n       THINKING ANIMALS (BY DR. WILLIAM MACKENZIE)            157\n\n\n\n\nIn recording the remarks made and answers given by these dogs I\nhave--wherever it seemed possible to do so without loss of a certain\ndistinctive charm--inserted the English translation _only_; here\nand there, however, where, for instance, the conversation between\nmistress and dog has turned on the spelling of a word it has been\nnecessary to give the entire sentence in German. There are also some\nquaint remarks of which I have been loth to omit the original, these\nbeing sure to appeal to anyone acquainted with idiomatic German.\n\nTHE TRANSLATOR\n\n\n\n\nLOLA\n\nTHOUGHT CAPACITY IN ANIMALS\n\n\nIt was in the year 1904 that the first experiments towards\nunderstanding an animal's ability to think were brought into public\nlight. Wilhelm von Osten then introduced his stallion Hans II to all\nwho seemed interested in the subject, and the most diametrically\nopposed opinions were soon rife with regard to the abilities of this\nhorse, to which von Osten maintained he had succeeded in teaching both\nspelling and arithmetic.\n\nThe animal's mental activity was said to lie in a simple form of\nthinking, called into being and intensified by means of a certain\namount of instruction. Von Osten, who had been a schoolmaster, had\npreviously spent some fourteen years in testing the intelligence of two\nother horses before he ventured to make his experiences public, and the\nperformances of these animals were not only remarkable, but of\nfar-reaching importance.\n\nHans I, aged twelve, died in 1905. He had never appeared in public,\nsince his abilities had been relatively modest. He had, nevertheless,\nbeen able to count up to five, as well as carry out quite a number of\nverbal instructions. It was Hans II, however, that convinced his\nmaster--as early as 1902--of his ability to comprehend a far greater\nrange of the German alphabet (when written), as well as to recognize a\ncertain number of colours.\n\nInstances, denoting signs of evident reflection and memory, had led to\nWilhelm von Osten turning his thoughts towards this work of animal\ntuition. Public opinion was divided; there were some who took the\nsubject seriously and who were grateful to this innovator for thus\nopening a new path of inquiry; yet many were sceptical--and the\nscientific commission called together in 1904 to investigate the\nsubject, finally knew no better than to heap their ridicule on the\ncareful and patient labours of a lifetime. \"Der kluge Hans\" (\"wise\" or\n\"clever Hans\")--by that time already a public character--now evoked\nsupercilious smiles and stood disgraced in the eyes of the majority.\nOnly a few, capable of delving more deeply into the subject, continued\nto follow these performances with ever-increasing interest and\namazement and kept their faith whole.\n\nVon Osten--though now embittered and pathetically silent--quietly\ncontinued his experiments up to his death, which took place in 1909. At\nfirst he had gone about his work alone, but he was joined subsequently\nby Karl Krall, who then became known in connexion with this work for\nthe first time.\n\nMany were the attempts made in certain quarters of the Press to account\nfor the facts of the case; the very simple means of procedure employed\nby von Osten were scouted and the whole thing proclaimed to be based\nupon trickery, influence, secret signs, an abnormal degree of training,\nand what not--anything and everything was seized upon in order to come\ninto line with ordinary opinion.\n\nThen, in the year 1905, Karl Krall, of Elberfeld, began his experiments\nwith Hans II, encouraging, as a foundation for the furtherance of his\ntheories, the abilities already developed in this horse, while devoting\na more profound measure of insight to the entire problem.\n\nKarl Krall, who lavished an untold amount of time and money on the\nquestion, has also raised it to an immeasurably higher plane. He has,\nindeed, placed a remarkable collection of carefully selected material\nat the service of the scientific world. With an unusual amount of\ndevotion, backed by patience and a genuine affection for his charges,\nKarl Krall has carried on a work of investigation to which he assigns\nno narrow limits; pursuing his labours with a cheerful energy, fully\nconvinced of the sacredness of his task.\n\nAnyone who has come into contact with Krall must feel respect for this\nman, whatever doubts he may harbour as to the results obtained.\n\nIn 1908 Krall started work with two Arab stallions, Zarif and Mohammed.\nBoth these animals learnt to count by means of rapping out the numbers\nwith their hoofs on a board. One rap with the left fore-hoof always\ncounted as \"ten,\" while each rap with the right fore-hoof counted as\n\"one\" only. The number twenty-five was, therefore, composed of two left\nraps and five right ones. Spelling was similarly indicated by a system\nof raps meant to express separate letters of the alphabet. A pause\nfollowed after each number and the answers, being displayed to sight in\nthe form of rows of numbers, it sufficed to place the letter thus\nindicated beneath its respective number in order to work out the reply.\nIn the course of time these animals learnt the most varied forms of\narithmetic, even to the extent of extracting the most difficult roots.\nThey had, indeed, learnt to give answers which were, for the part,\nquite independent--thus supplying the most unexpected insight into\ntheir actual thinking and feeling.\n\nThey also learnt the divisions of time, while every kind of experiment\nwas undertaken in order to test their reasoning capacity. All these\nattempts and the majority of results were of such a nature that it\nbecame quite impossible not to realize that further persistence along\nthe same lines of inquiry was bound to lead to a confirmation of the\nassurances already given by Karl Krall with regard to his pupils'\n\"scholarship.\" Many diverse opinions were heard, while the number of\nserious adherents to the cause as well as that of its opponents\nincreased. Special instances to which objection had been taken on the\nscore of supposed \"influence,\" or of \"signalling,\" were carefully\ninvestigated by Krall in order to clear up any implied doubts. For this\npurpose a blind horse, by name \"Bertho,\" was taken in hand, proof being\nthus provided to confute the mythical \"code of signals\" supposed to\nexist between master and pupil. Other tests undertaken with Bertho were\nequally successful; Krall was, in fact, always eager and willing to\nsubmit every objection brought forward to investigation, evident though\nit was, that his own vast experience amply sufficed to tip the balance\nin his favour.\n\nIt would take us too long should we attempt to enter into any detailed\ndiscussion on this point. Krall's book, \"Denkende Tiere\" (\"Thinking\nAnimals\")[1], may be recommended as the best source for investigation\nfor those desiring to know more on this subject.\n\n      [1] Published by Friedrich Engelmann, Leipzig.\n\nIt must in any case be admitted that the investigations undertaken by\nKrall have shed a flood of light on the problem of the capacity for\nthought latent in our higher animals, enabling him, as we have seen, to\nlay down--within certain limits--in how far and in what way the\nexistence of this capability can be _proved_ where the horse is\nconcerned. Up to the commencement of the Great War these investigations\nwere continued, a number of different horses being used for the\npurpose.\n\nIn the year 1912 I became acquainted with a new contribution towards\nthe question of animal psychology in the person of a Mannheim dog\ncalled \"Rolf.\"\n\nThe manner in which Rolf's gifts revealed themselves was disclosed in\nthe columns of the \"Muenchner Nachrichten\" as follows:\n\n    \"OUR DOG ROLF\n\n    \"_By Frau Paula Moekel_ (nee _von Moers, in Mannheim_)\n\n    \"Anyone possessing an intelligent dog of his own will probably\n    occupy himself far more with it than he is wont to do with other\n    animals. This has been the case with our Rolf, a two-year-old\n    Airedale terrier, which has already attained to celebrity. It was\n    accident that led to our discovery of his talent for doing sums\n    correctly. Our children were sitting together at work on their\n    home-lessons, and one of my little girls--seized with a fit of\n    inattention--was unable to solve her very easy task, viz., 122 plus\n    2. At length, and after the child had stumbled repeatedly over this\n    simple answer, my patience was at an end, and I punished her. Rolf,\n    whose attachment to the children is quite touching, looked very\n    sad, and he gazed at Frieda with his expressive eyes as though he\n    was anxious to help her. Seeing this I exclaimed: 'Just see what\n    eyes Rolf is making!  It looks as if _he_ knew what you do not!' No\n    sooner had I said this than Rolf, who had been lying under my\n    writing-table, got up and came to my side. In surprise I asked him:\n    'Well, Rolf, do you know what two plus two amounts to?' Whereupon\n    the animal tapped my arm with his paw _four times_--we were all\n    speechless! After a little while we asked him again--'5 plus 5?'\n    Here, too, the correct answer was forthcoming, and thus on the\n    first day did we question him up to a hundred, and with equal\n    success. After that verbal instruction became my daily occupation\n    with the dog, in the same way that one might teach an intelligent\n    child, Rolf entering readily into everything, indeed, we seemed to\n    notice that his studies gave him pleasure. By degrees he became\n    able to solve his sums correctly in every form of arithmetic,\n    finally even getting as far as to extract two and three roots.\n\n    \"We soon noticed that Rolf could also recognize letters and\n    numerals. He read his own name easily, for when anyone began to\n    write it on the typewriter he instantly started wagging his tail\n    with delight. Our greatest desire now was to devise some means of\n    communication with him and I therefore began with the following\n    simple explanation:\n\n    \"'Rolf,' I said, 'if you could say yes and no, you would be able to\n    talk to us; now, look here! when you want to say _yes_, give us\n    your paw _twice_, and if _no_, then give it _three_ times,' and I\n    at once put this suggestion to an easy test, for I asked him if he\n    would like to be spanked--and he returned a decided _no_! Then I\n    asked him if he would like some cake, to which a prompt and joyful\n    affirmative was given. I saw therefore that Rolf understood me, and\n    upon this mutual basis I proceeded carefully to build. At length\n    his alphabet came into being--he having, with the exception of one\n    or two letters, put it together entirely by himself. It was\n    constructed thus: I would ask him, for instance, 'Rolf, how many\n    taps with your paw are you going to give me for _a_?' and he then\n    gave me a number which I carefully noted down. To my inexpressible\n    pleasure I found that Rolf never forgot the numbers he had given,\n    though I, to this day, must have my notes to hand whenever Rolf\n    wishes to tap out anything. It is also remarkable that on a nearer\n    investigation of his \"alphabet\" it becomes evident that the letters\n    Rolf requires least are made up of the highest numbers, whereas\n    those to which he has constant recourse have their equivalents\n    among the lower numbers. The letters q, v, x, Rolf never uses, as\n    though he wished to prove to me that they are entirely useless and\n    superfluous. Rolf can recognize any money that is shown him and\n    counts the flowers in a bunch according to their colours and\n    varieties. He can also differentiate the high and the deep tones on\n    any instrument, and he is even capable of telling the number of\n    tones struck in a chord. His memory is marvellous; he remembers\n    names and numbers over quite a period of time, once he has heard\n    them, and he is ready to do his tasks with any persons who are\n    sympathetic to him should he know them well enough. It is, however,\n    difficult to get him to work as long as anyone who is not\n    sympathetic remains in the room. What he raps out is, of course,\n    phonetically spelt--just according to how it sounds to him, and we\n    have not attempted to worry him with orthography! His own original\n    remarks are delightful.\"\n\nThe dog, Rolf, attained in the course of time to a higher level than\ndid the horses. This may probably be explained by the fact that dogs\nare, as a rule, more continuously in the company of human beings, being\nalso due to their superior intelligence. Rolf's mode of procedure\nconsisted in a series of raps given with his fore-paws, similar to\nthose given by the horses with their hoofs; but Rolf used the same paw\nfor both decimals and units, so that we had from time to time to\ninquire after every number rapped out--'Is it a decimal or a unit?'\nWhereupon he would rap 'yes,' or 'no'--as the case might be. The\nnumbers were then written down and the answers thus obtained.\n\nRolf's feats of arithmetic, like those performed by the horses,\nincluded finding the square root in the most difficult problems; yet it\nwas in the matter of spelling answers that he excelled. Indeed, he\nseemed to command a particularly rich vocabulary, and applied the same\nwith the greatest accuracy and continuity, even in long answers. These\nreplies, when collected in their proper sequence should provide us with\na wealth of insight into an animal's life of feeling. Such a collection\nis already extant, but has not yet been made public.\n\nMany of the dog's answers, as well as innumerable debates about him\nhave been published in the \"Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft fuer\nTierpsychologie\"[2] (\"Communications of the Society for the Study of\nAnimal Psychology\"), while others may be found in the periodical\n\"Animal Soul.\"[3]\n\n      [2] Published by the committee through the agency of Professor\n      Ziegler.\n\n      [3] Published by Emil Eisell, in Bonn.\n\nRolf has made frequent public appearances and been subjected to tests\nof several hours' duration. These have taken place both in the presence\nof his kind and gifted mistress and teacher, and also quite alone with\nhis examiners. On every occasion of his appearance notes have been\ntaken as to the procedures, and on one occasion these were even\nattested by a Notary. At such times, indeed, suggestions were not\ninfrequently made which might be said to exceed every justifiable\nlimit; tests were carried out prior to which the whole family had to\nvacate the house--carpets were taken up, in order to hunt for electric\nwires; window-shutters were closed; cupboards and premises searched,\nand sentinels posted--all this being tolerated by them with the utmost\ngood-humour! And in spite of all this upheaval, Rolf was almost without\nexception ready with his replies! A fact that may well be set to his\ncredit, when we consider how sensitive and capricious animals are by\nnature. Of his examiners, it may be said, that they covered themselves\nwith confusion.\n\nOne public appearance brought him well-merited praise from a large\ncircle of acquaintances. So excellently did he acquit himself on this\noccasion that I should like to place it on record.\n\n\n\"REPORT OF THE PUBLIC APPEARANCE OF THE SPELLING DOG ROLF\n\n\"_By Professor H. F. Ziegler_\n\n\"In order to collect subscriptions for the benefit of the Central\nCommittee of War Charities, as also for the Society responsible for the\ndogs for Army Medical Service, Frau Dr. Moekel kindly consented to\nintroduce her dog Rolf to the general public for the first time.\n\n\"The performance took place in the Hall of the Casino at Mannheim, on\nthe 11th of May, 1914. Every seat in the Hall was taken.\n\n\"Professor Kraemer of Hohenheim opened the meeting; he dwelt on the\nusefulness of these dogs--trained to perform tasks in which their\nintelligence accounted for no small part. He alluded to the scientific\nimportance of the new method of instruction by means of spelling--a\nmethod first brought forward in connexion with the 'Thinking Horses'\nbelonging to Messrs. von Osten and K. Krall, and which had revealed\nhitherto unexpected aspects of the animal soul.\n\n\"He further pointed out the total absence of any intentional or\nunintentional signalling, an objection which has already been\nsufficiently disproved by the many singular and entirely spontaneous\ncommunications constantly made on such occasions. Finally, he\nemphasized that the investigations Frau Dr. Moekel had made with her\ndog had proved to be of immense value as contributions towards the\nstudy of animal psychology, being, in fact, of great scientific\nservice.\n\n\"Frau Dr. Moekel was then wheeled on to the platform in her bath-chair,\nand Rolf seated himself by her side.\n\n\"In the first place a number of sums were set the dog which had been\ncalled out by the audience; they were as follows: (4 x 7 - 13) / 3 = 5,\n2 x 10 / 4 = 5, 8 x 9 / 12 = 6.\n\n\"When the problem [3rt]27 was given Rolf proclaimed the correct number\n'3,'--he immediately followed this, however, by spelling out: 'nid\nwurdsl' ('no more roots'), implying that he declined anything further\nto do with that form of reckoning; he had indeed, objected to 'roots'\nfor some time past! He next proceeded to name the various persons he\nrecognized in the assembly--the first being, 'dand, speisl basl' (Frau\nDr. Speiser, aus Basel); 'glein' (a Herr Klein, whom he had not seen\nfor two years); further, 'ogl lsr' (Herr Landsgerichtsrat Leser). When,\nhowever, he was asked by a gentleman sitting in the front row whether\nhe knew him (the gentleman in question had sent him notes from time to\ntime), he replied: 'lol nid wisn' (Lol doesn't know). (N.B. Rolf is in\nthe habit of referring to himself as 'Lol.')\n\n\"In order to subject him to an unexpected test I had brought with me a\nbox containing a 'may-bug' made of papier mache, the inside of which\nwas filled with biscuits. After Frau Dr. Moekel had retired from the\nplatform I opened my box and showed it to Rolf. He pushed his nose into\nit, exhibiting marked interest and seemed impatient to communicate the\nmatter to his mistress, therefore without more ado he spelt out:\n'maigfr in sagdl, inn was dsm sn' (i.e. 'Maikafer in der Schachtel;\ninnen was zu essen') (May-bug in box; inside something to eat), adding,\npresumably as an after-thought, 'nid gefressn' (nicht gefressen; didn't\neat it!). Rolf had therefore recognised the biscuits inside the may-bug\nby their smell only--and was anxious that she should know that they\nhadn't been given him to eat! After this a gentleman in the audience\nasked permission to put a secret test. The object selected was shown to\nthe dog in such a manner that his mistress had to turn aside so as not\nto see it. But Rolf had become obstinate and refused to name the thing,\nand he insisted on spelling out: 'nid, lol rgrd der wisd man': he\nappeared to be 'geaergert' by the 'wueste man' (worried, or vexed by the\nrough man)--and it may, indeed, have been that the dog sensed a certain\ndistrust of his mistress, or that, as is often the case with other\ndogs, that he was reluctant to 'show off' at the request of an entire\nstranger. Another time, should a similar trial be contemplated, it\nwould be wiser if the article to be named by the dog were--even if\nhanded up by the person desirous of making the test--shown him by\nsomeone with whom he is familiar.[4]\n\n      [4] Frau Dr. Moekel told me that she again asked the dog on\n      the following day what the article shown him had been and he\n      answered: \"hd sdld bei arm grosfadr grab lib maibliml\" (Hat\n      gestehlt bei des armen Grossvaters Grab das liebe Maibluemchen)\n      (Had stolen from dear grandfather's grave the dear little\n      lilies-of-the-valley!). The object shown him had been a\n      lily-of-the-valley, and a few days before, Frau Moekel's\n      mother had told the children that she had taken all the\n      lilies-of-the-valley to their grandfather's grave. Rolf,\n      therefore, seemed to have conceived the idea that the flowers\n      shown him had been pilfered.--ZIEGLER.\n\n\"Gradually Rolf became tired and rapped out: 'lol bd' (i.e. Rolf bett =\nRolf to bed). A pause was made during which some of Rolf's earlier\ncommunications were made public. One was his reply as to why dogs do\nnot like cats;[5] this ran: 'lol imr hd dsorn wn sid kdsl, freigt fon\nwgn graln. Lol hd lib sis dsi di nid dud grdsn lol, abr, andr hundl, di\nnid gnn ir.' ( = Lol is always angry when he sees cats, perhaps on\naccount of their claws: Lol loves sweet Daisy, who doesn't scratch\nLol--but other dogs who do not know her.)\n\n      [5] The hatred of dogs for cats is hereditary; it is an instinct\n      common to all dogs, and, seeing that instinctive sensations do\n      not owe their origin to any deliberate act of reasoning, it is\n      generally difficult to account for them. It is therefore worth\n      drawing attention to the fact that Rolf did, nevertheless, make\n      an attempt at giving a reasonable reply.--ZIEGLER.\n\n\"On 20 August, 1914, he rapped out a remark that referred to the war;\nit had, of course, been difficult to explain the _nature_ of war to\nhim; the only way in which it seemed at all possible to bring this to\nhis understanding was by comparing it to the scuffling and quarrelling\nof dogs--on which he observed: 'lol grn (i.e. gern = likes to) raufn,\nmudr frbidn (i.e. Mutter verbieten = Mother forbids) abr franzos raufn\nmit deidsn (i.e. Deutschen), mudr soln frbidn, (i.e. Mutter soll es\nverbieten = Mother should forbid it), di nid dirfn (duerfen) raufe, is\nganz wirsd fon di ( = They should not be allowed to quarrel--it is very\nrough of them!).\n\n\"When the tests were resumed, Frau Dr. Moekel asked Rolf: 'What was it\nthe man called out in the street yesterday, when you were looking out\nof the window?' and the dog spelt out: 'egsdrablad 5 hundrd franzos un\nso weidr' ( = special edition 5 hundred French--and so on!). The\nlaughter elicited by this statement appeared to offend Rolf, for he\npromptly spelt out the query: 'di lagn warum?' ( = They laugh--why?).\n\n\"After this he applied himself to counting the flowers in a bouquet,\nand he was asked to whom he would like to present it. He replied: \"lib\nadolfin\" ( = dear Adolphine), thus distinguishing a particular lady who\nwas present--and he further added \"gomn\" (i.e. kommen = come), she had\ntherefore to step forward and receive the bouquet in person.\n\n\"Little flags were distributed next, and Rolf was told to name the\ncountry each stood for. For the yellow and black colours he spelt out:\n\"esdeig\" (Austria), for the Turkish--'dirgig'; for the Baden flag:\n\"baadin,\" while the Wuerttemberg colours he regarded as _German_! On\nbeing shown the Bavarian flag he spelt: 'lib mudr sei fei farb!' (i.e.\ndie feine Farbe der lieben Mutter = the brave colours of dear\nmother)--Frau Dr. Moekel being of Bavarian descent.\n\n\"At the close of the meeting Rolf was told to name certain melodies,\nand a gentleman present whistled the beginning of the song 'O,\nDeutschland hoch in Ehren'--but the dog did not at once recognize the\nsong and spelt out--'nogmal!' (i.e. noch einmal = once more!). Then the\nentire song was whistled to him and he spelt: 'heldons sdurm gbraus'\n(i.e. Heldensturm-gebraus) and, as he liked to hear singing, he added:\n'Wagd fon rein singe, bid' ( = Watch on the Rhine sing, please!). The\nsame gentleman then obliged him by whistling the 'Wacht am Rhein,' but\nhe was not quite content, for--as he subsequently observed, 'this was\nnot singing' (dis nid singt).\n\n\"At the close of his tests Rolf was rewarded with a cake which he\npromptly recognised as 'basllegrl' (Basler Leckerle = a Specialite of\nBale).\n\n\"'The Heidelberger Zeitung' commented on the performance as follows:\n\n\"'The astonishment of the audience increased with every moment, while\ntheir delight and enthusiasm at the close of this remarkable and\ninteresting evening found vent in a storm of applause.'\n\n\"Another journal, the 'Badische General Anzeige' wrote:\n\n\"'The evening's performance must have converted many who before had\nbeen sceptical.'\"\n\n                     *      *      *      *      *\n\nEven as there are numerous horses capable of exercising similar\nabilities, so too, is Rolf not a solitary example among dogs of his\nkind to profit by instruction. Indeed, many of his descendants are\nreceiving tuition under the guidance of different instructors, and are\ngiving a good account of themselves.\n\nI will here add Professor Ziegler's Report:\n\n\n\"NEW REPORTS CONCERNING THE CALCULATING AND SPELLING DOG[6]\n\n\"_By Professor Ziegler_\n\n\"The descendants of the dog Rolf that have been trained by Frau Dr.\nMoekel,[7] are now full grown, and several of them have acquitted\nthemselves with success. These are the bitch Ilse, the two males, Heinz\nand Harras, and the bitch Lola, and I here purpose to set down the\nlatest information about these animals. It is of great importance that\nthe various persons under whose care these dogs were trained\nshould--though independently of each other--have made similar\nobservations. All investigators have reported the same astonishing\nmemory, this affording the foundation for the dogs' feats in reckoning\nand spelling.\n\n      [6] Taken from the \"Communications of The Society for Animal\n      Psychology,\" 1916. pp. 6-9.\n\n\"As these reports come from persons resident at different places, who\nneither know, nor are in communication with each other, we here have\nthe surest proof there is no secret or trick involved in the matter.\"\n\n\n\"A. REPORT ON THE BITCH ILSE\n\n\"Concerning Ilse, of whom a clergyman is the owner, Dr. Oelhausen has\nalready given us some details in earlier numbers of our\n'Communications'.[7] He now sends me the following, which he received\nfrom Frau Dr. Moekel in the summer of last year. The reverend gentleman\nhad left Ilse for a few hours at Frau Dr. Moekel's--as he had often\ndone before--while he went into town to make some purchases. On this\nparticular occasion Frau Dr. Moekel noticed that Ilse looked\nparticularly depressed, and her little daughter, Carla, being disturbed\nabout the dog's woe-begone air, said: 'Mummy, Ilse must be in trouble!\nOnly see how serious she is!' So Frau Dr. Moekel asked the dog: 'Ilse,\nare you really sorrowful?' To which Ilse responded: 'Ja, hr hib.' ( =\nyes, Master beating!). Frau Dr. Moekel: 'But Ilse, I am sure your\nmaster is kind to you; you are imagining!'\n\n      [7] These dogs were born on 26 and 27 January, 1914. Compare the\n      letter of Rolf in the \"Communications of the Society for Animal\n      Psychology,\" 1914, p. 28; and \"The Soul of the Animal,\" p. 111.\n\n\"Ilse: 'bd'.\n\n\"Frau Dr. Moekel: 'Bed? Ilse--have you a bed?'\n\n\"Ilse: 'Nein.'\n\n\"Frau Dr. Moekel: 'But where do you sleep?'\n\n\"Ilse: 'hols.'\n\n\"Frau Dr. Moekel: 'Ilse, you poor little dog! Have you to sleep on the\nwood behind the stove?'\n\n\"Ilse: 'Ja!'\n\n\"Frau Dr. Moekel: 'Then I'll tell you what to do, Ilse: you just get up\non to your master's bed--he needn't have it all to himself.'\n\n\"Frau Dr. Moekel said later that she had not made this suggestion\nseriously, that, in fact, she had said it more to quiet Carla, and had\nsoon forgotten all about it. But the next day the dog's master called\nagain and complained of Ilse, saying: 'What do you think of this? Ilse\nis really getting unbearable--the beast got into my bed last night:\nthere she was this morning--stretched her whole length!' And Frau Dr.\nMoekel had now to confess that she herself had instigated this lapse on\nIlse's part.\n\n\"To this account Dr. Oelhausen has added: 'This statement has several\npoints of interest. There is firstly the complaint about 'beatings,'\nand secondly the comparison drawn between her own nocturnal quarters\nand those of Rolf. It may also be noticed that she was very sparing of\nher words, using, indeed, no more than the merest 'essentials'! Then,\nobserve the careful way in which she followed 'Mother's' advice--only\ngetting into her master's bed after he was well asleep!'\n\n\"Another incident, the details of which were supplied to him by Ilse's\nmaster, has also been communicated to us by Dr. Oelhausen:\n\n\"'The clergyman had taken several of his village school-children for a\nwalk, during the course of which he asked them the names of the various\ntrees. Among these was one of which no child could tell the name. Ilse,\nhis constant companion, was also of the party, and she now pressed\nforward with such marked interest that her master put the question to\nher too. At this Ilse started rapping and spelt out the correct\nname--the tree was a larch. Her master was greatly surprised at this,\nsuggested, however, that it was probably less a matter of knowledge\nthan of thought-transference, yet Dr. Oelhausen queries whether the dog\nmight not have heard the name mentioned on some previous outing, and\nher master admits that this might have been the case.'\n\n\"We know the unfaltering tenacity with which the Mannheim dog, Rolf,\nremembers names, so that it would seem more reasonable to ascribe the\nspelling of the name to her excellent memory than to thought-transference,\nwhich would be quite as inexplicable and incomprehensible.\n\n\"To the above I may add one more incident touching Ilse, which I\nreceived from Frau Dr. Moekel on 25 May, 1915:\n\n\"'Ilse will prove valuable to us, for--though I have given her no\ninstruction--her master has achieved the very same results with her as\nI have with Rolf.[8] This is what took place the other day: My dear\nhusband went to see our reverend friend and having arrived too early\nfor Divine Service, seated himself on a high stone in the neighbourhood\nof the little church and not far from the parsonage. Our friend saw my\nhusband and came out, accompanied by Ilse, to fetch him into the house.\nIlse jumped up against my husband, wagged her tail, licked him--and\nshowed so much exuberant affection that her master was quite surprised,\nand asked her:\n\n      [8] Ilse was barely two months old when she came into the\n      possession of her master, on 20 April, 1914.\n\n\"'Do you know this gentleman?' To which Ilse replied: 'No!' adding, as\nthough as an after-thought--'Rolf!' She had evidently scented Rolf (who\nis her father and of whom she is very fond) about my husband's\nclothes'\"\n\n\n\"B. REPORT ON THE DOG HEINZ\n\n\"A second dog, by name Heinz, who came into the possession of Mr.\nJustice Leser in Mannheim, has proved himself to be an excellent\narithmetician, and this without ever having been worried with\ninstruction. In the same way as Rolf he gives two raps for 'yes' and\nthree for 'no,' while four express that he is 'tired.'\n\n\"Mr. Justice Leser reports:\n\n\"If I ask Heinz whether he will do arithmetic he invariably raps \"2,\"\neven though sometimes accompanying his assent with a yawn. I am\ngenerally obliged to hold out the prospect of some reward as an\ninducement to do his sums. I should have preferred his rapping against\nsome article one could hold in one's hand, or that he could be induced\nto \"rap out\" on a board setting forth the numbers, and which might be\nplaced on the floor before him; but to neither of these alternatives\nwill he agree, having since his earliest youth learnt to rap in the\nsame way as Rolf does. He will, however, not only rap for me, but for\nany person he knows well, solving such problems as: 3 + 4 - 6, or\n[121rt] + 3, or 14/2 + 4, or 3^2, and he seldom makes a mistake, even\nwhen the sum he may be asked merely resembles the form of arithmetic he\nhas learnt. But he generally gives up after two or three sums and is\ngenerally distracted. He can read the figures too, and generally gives\na correct solution to sums which have been written down for him and\nwhich I myself have not read. Like Rolf, he only looks at the paper\nsideways. He reads very reluctantly. His memory is excellent;\nespecially quick is he at recognizing those persons again who have at\nany time had to do with him.'\n\n\"When I was in Mannheim on 22 March, 1916, Mr. Justice Leser was kind\nenough to show me the dog. I put some problems to it verbally and was\nable to satisfy myself as to its abilities in the matter of arithmetic.\nOf those then put by me I still call to mind the following: '24 / 3 -\n3?' Answer: '5,' and '[10,000rt] - 87?' Answer: '13.'[9]\n\n      [9] The dog had become familiar with square roots in the course\n      of earlier attempts.\"\n\n\n\"C. REPORT ON THE DOG HARRAS\n\n\"The third dog, Harras, came into the possession of Fraeulein Eva\nHoffmann, of Schloss Berwartstein, near Bergzabern, and was instructed\nby her in spelling and arithmetic with excellent results. This lady\nsends the following report:\n\n\"'From the very beginning his gift for arithmetic was quite remarkable.\nIt was enough to give him an idea of how to reckon, explaining to him\nthe different forms of arithmetic, for the dog to learn to give the\nright answers to easy sums immediately.\n\n\"'Fractions, decimals, cubes and the easier forms of equation, have\nbeen set him by a stranger. With some coaching he was also able to\nmaster textual problems in this way, giving eager and glad response in\nthe form of \"yes\" and \"no\" when it came to questioning him as to his\nhaving understood or not understood--liked or not liked the subject. He\nusually did his sums with evident pleasure and with amazing celerity.\nSpelling gave him more trouble. He could not even remember an alphabet\nhe had himself put together, and one I invented for him he only\nmemorized after going over it many times. He took no pleasure in\nputting words together and got tired very soon. Some of his original\nremarks are that he recognized Sunday by the \"dress\" I had on; also\nthat he had dreamt of a \"cow\" (this after having seen one when we were\nout walking), and so on.\n\n\"'Remarkable is his love of truth; should he have done anything that\ndeserves punishment, he approaches me with his head hanging down and a\nvery dejected tail--replying to the question as to whether he deserves\na whipping with a reluctant \"yes,\" and to a further enquiry as to\nwhether he is ashamed of himself, he responds with an emphatic\n\"yes--yes--yes!\"\n\n\"'But as is the case with children, example and precept are of far\ngreater use than corporeal punishment, although this cannot be\nneglected altogether. The axiom that we evolve in accordance with the\ntreatment meted out to us is as true in the case of an animal as it is\nwith that of a human being, and the more this is recognized and laid to\nheart the shorter will be the martyrdom still inflicted upon the animal\nkingdom.'\n\n\"In the March of this year Fraeulein Hoffmann was kind enough to\ncommunicate the following incident to me; it corroborates an earlier\nobservation made by Frau Dr. Moekel (compare 'Communications of the\nSociety for Animal Psychology,' 1914, p. 6, or 'The Soul of an Animal,'\n1916, p. 81).\n\n\"'I was sitting in the garden reading, when I heard the sound of birds\ntwittering over their food in a tree hard by. Harras watched them\nattentively for some time and I told him the names of the birds--they\nwere jays and wood-peckers. The next morning he did not come up to my\nroom a second time with the maid, although he can generally hardly\ncontain himself until he has had his breakfast given him. At length,\nwhen he did appear, I asked him if he had seen the birds again, and he\nanswered \"yes\"; then to my question as to their names he gave \"her\" and\n\"spct\" (i.e. \"Haeher\" and \"Specht\" = jay and woodpecker).'\"\n\n\n\"D. REPORT ON THE DOG ROLAND\n\n\"Little Roland, who received his first tuition from Frau Dr. Moekel,\nunfortunately came to an untimely end--owing to an accident.[10]\nConcerning this, Frau Dr. Moekel wrote to me in March, 1915, as\nfollows:\n\n      [10] Frau Dr. Moekel taught another young dog, called Lux, as\n      well as Roland, the former being taken over by a gentleman in\n      Mannheim. In a protocol dated 14 June, 1914, I stated that Lux\n      was able to do a certain amount of arithmetic at the age of four\n      and a half months.\n\n\"'My dear little Roland--whom we called \"Guckerl\" ( = Peep-eyes),\nbecause of his wonderful eyes, has been run over by a motor-car. He\nsuffered terribly for two days and died on 19 March. His death is not\nonly a sorrow to me, but a loss to the interests of the cause we have\nat heart, for Roland had begun to make the most delightful remarks\nquite spontaneously. On the last evening before the accident, he came\nto me and--without having been questioned--rapped out: \"Rolf ark bei\n(s) d arm roland\" ( = Rolf has badly bitten poor Roland). I was not able\nat the time to translate his little utterance, and it was only after\nhis death that I remembered my notes. Then, on putting them together it\ntranspired that Roland had been bitten by Rolf because he had chased\nDaisy, our kitten.\n\n\"'Roland could recognize money, stamps and bank-notes; he could count\nflowers and bricks, and knew all the various colours and scents as well\nas count tones, recognize melodies and tell the time.'\n\n\"I have not added my report made with reference to Lola to the above,\nthe object of my book being to make the reader acquainted with this\ndog.\"\n\n\n\n\nMY PREVIOUS ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE SUBJECT\n\n\nI cannot remember whether it was in 1912, or earlier, or possibly even\nlater, that I heard for the first time of Karl Krall's horses at\nElberfeld. No details then reached me; only just the generalities\nrelative to their ability to count and spell. Of their fore-runner,\n\"der kluge Hans,\" I had as yet heard nothing. I had been a child when\nHans had made his debut, so to speak; he had then vanished and the\nodium which had later attached to his name was, therefore, unknown to\nme. I may say that I was totally unprejudiced when the news of these\nhorses reached and, indeed, as there was but little information I did\nnot interest myself further about the subject, although it had made a\nmomentary impression on me. A year or two later Professor Kraemer of\nHohenheim arrested public attention by his investigations respecting\nanimals, and it was there that I heard him deliver a lecture on the\nhorses and also the dog Rolf of Mannheim, hearing further details from\nhim in conversation with my father[11] and myself. What I then heard\ninterested me immensely.\n\n      [11] Professor Karl Kindermann, of Hohenheim.\n\nProfessor Kraemer was a keen advocate of this subject, but I was chary\nof forming any opinion without deeper investigations. The possibility\nof \"self-expression\" on the part of animals did not seem to me to be\nbeyond the bounds of belief, even though some examples which were\nsupposed to attest to high intelligence seemed to me a little doubtful.\nI tried to get more information, but was hindered at the time owing to\nthe three years' course of studies I was then pursuing at the Hohenheim\nSchool of Agriculture, so that I was neither able to try any\nexperiments on my own part, nor even to read Krall's great work on the\nsubject. The entire question, therefore, remained an open one--as far\nas I was concerned, although my father had been to Elberfeld to see the\nhorses, and had,--after making personal tests--come to the conclusion\nthat everything was above-board and in accordance with what it claimed\nto be and that the animals really did give answers which were the\noutcome of their own independent thinking. In addition to this I read\nthe public communications made by Professor Ziegler at Stuttgart, as\nwell as also his own personal opinions.\n\nBoth these gentlemen, Professor Ziegler, as well as Professor Kraemer,\nwere known to me only in their capacity of serious and conscientious\ninvestigators, men upon whose judgment I might safely rely, so long as\nmy own experience did not oblige me to take up a different standpoint.\nAnd further, I skimmed over everything that the Press brought forward\nof an opposing nature, so that I might know _their_ point of view as\nwell.\n\nAfter I had passed my Academic Examination, and taken my Diploma, I\ntook over, some six months later, the independent management of a big\nestate in the Rheinland, which consisted of three hundred acres. (I was\nable to do this on the strength of some practical experience I had had\npreviously in Thueringen apart from my studies.)\n\nAfter a year and a half I felt sufficiently at home at the work to be\nable to turn my attention to such matters of interest as lay outside\nthat of my daily work, and I now called to mind the subject of the\n\"Thinking Horses,\" deciding to attempt some experiments. The approach\nof such a solitary season as winter seemed to me particularly suited to\nthis attempt and I placed myself in communication with Professor\nZiegler so as to hear of a likely animal. It was to be a dog, and--for\npreference--a relation of Rolf. Indeed, I felt sure of excellent\nresults, should my quest meet with success. A dog is of all animals\n_the_ one that has for generations associated most with man; its\nattachment is of the most intimate and the most faithful nature, so\nthat by inheritance, as it were, it would seem to be in a greater state\nof \"preparedness\" for fulfilling man's behests. Horses, oxen, asses,\npigs, and poultry, etc., are each and all, of course, accustomed to the\nguidance of man's hand, but--here in Europe, at all events--they live\ntheir lives apart and are not so domesticated; they cannot, therefore,\nform so intimate an acquaintance with man, by means of eye and ear, as\ncan enable them to comprehend both language and gestures. For practical\npurposes horses would seem to come next to dogs in the matter of\nintelligence--more particularly Arab horses. An Arab talks to his horse\nas he would to a friend, and the sparkle in the eye of this animal\ndenotes its intelligence. In the matter of actual sensibility, the ox,\nthe ass, and other creatures have practically nothing in common with\nus, showing an utterly foreign type of intelligence, and one, moreover,\nwhich has--owing to the existent century-old customs of keeping them\nisolated in their stalls--depressed even such intelligence as was\noriginally theirs. Creatures of the wild seem only in exceptional cases\nto prove amenable to training, however great their intelligence may be\nthey cannot adapt themselves to man's control, and can as a rule only\nimitate, seldom revealing to us any gleam of mental alertness.\n\nProfessor Ziegler recommended a bitch which was a descendant of Rolf's\nand advised me to pay a visit to Mannheim. I did so, and our interview\nwas most satisfactory. It lasted three-quarters of an hour, by which\ntime I had assured myself that the dog could answer, even though he did\nnot tap my hand, but rapped out his remarks on a piece of cardboard\nheld by Fraeulein Moekel. Here is the account of my visit:\n\n\n\"REPORT OF FRAeULEIN KINDERMANN OF HER VISIT TO THE FAMILY OF DR.\nMOEKEL, IN MANNHEIM, 11 JANUARY, 1916.\n\n\"After hearing much about the 'thinking animals,' more particularly\nabout the dog Rolf, and having also with great enthusiasm read\neverything I could find on the subject, I became obsessed with the\ndesire to embark on this study, forming my opinion by tests carried out\nmyself, thus personally being in a position to approach the subject\nwith the requisite scientific accuracy.\n\n\"The Moekels assisted my desire with kindly and ready response, placing\na descendant of Rolf at my disposal, and allowing me to acquire some\ninsight into their 'spelling-method' by watching Rolf at work. Here is\nthe account of my visit:\n\n\"Rolf was brought into a room where there was no one beyond the family\nand myself. Rolf ran eagerly from one to the other and jumped up at me.\nHolding up a little packet of biscuits, I said to him:\n\n\"'This is what Professor Ziegler sends you from Stuttgart with many\ngreetings, and he hopes you are good, and that you will write him a\nletter.'\n\n\"I saw from his glance that he understood me, but it was only after\nFraeulein Moekel had most earnestly 'put it to him' that he consented to\nrap out a reply. At first it was not easy for me to follow, for--owing\nprobably to his reluctance--he was not \"working\" distinctly, but by\ndegrees I accustomed myself to his methods, and was able to \"keep\ncount\" along with the others. What he rapped out was this:\n\n\"'Lib Deigler, dank fuer fein gegs,[12] die geben nit gegs arm lol[13]\nmehr schicken; maedel is lieb, gruss von lol\" ( = Dear Dr. Ziegler,\nthanks for nice biscuits: they give no biscuits to poor Lol--send more.\nThe girl's a dear: greetings from Lol.)'\n\n      [12] Gegs = keks; Germans call biscuits \"keks.\"\n\n      [13] Here observe that Rolf has the impudence to complain of the\n      Moekels for not feeding him on sweet biscuits!\n\n\"After this I showed him some salmon wrapped up in paper, and said:\n\n\"'See! this is what I have brought for you; what is it?' To this he did\nnot rap out 'salmon,' as we had all expected--good as it was to the\nsmell, but 'erst riechen' (first let me smell it). This was a ruse on\nhis part, and one to which I succumbed, for no sooner did I hold it\nnearer to his nose than he snatched it out of my hand! It was, however,\npromptly taken from him and he was told he would have to 'deserve it'\nfirst. In the meantime a young female dog had come into the room--she\nanswered to the name of Lola, and I asked Rolf if Lola might come with\nme. His reply was a most decided 'No!' I put some further questions to\nhim, and Frau von Moers particularly asked him: 'Is Lola clever? Is\nLola to learn?' to which he made answer: 'Lola is clever, but she is\nnot to learn because of the professors'--and he actually made a face,\napparently he was thinking of his own experiences. I laughed, and said:\n\n\"'Lola shall have a good time with me; she shall run about in the woods\nand the meadows, and play with a lot of other animals, and not have to\nwork too long; the professors shall be sent away when Lola is tired.'\nThis evidently pleased him, and he became very friendly to me, and on\nmy returning to my point and asking once more whether Lola might go\nwith me, he rapped out his answer on my hand: it was 'Yes!'\n\n\"Then I told him about an ox, who, when he didn't want to work,\npretended to be dead. Rolf now got very excited, and wanted to go on\nrapping--first on my hand, and then on the leather-covered sofa on\nwhich I was sitting. I became rather uneasy and got him to go and rap\nto Fraeulein Moekel, for I could then follow the raps far better. And\nwhat he now had to say referred to the deceitful ox--it was: \"Hat\nRecht: Lol immer sagen Bauchweh!\" ( = Quite right of him! Lol always\nsays he has a pain in his stomach!)\n\n\"After this I showed him another box of biscuits, with a picture of a\nlittle nigger-boy on the lid, and asked:\n\n\"'What do you see on this?'\n\n\"To which he eagerly replied:\n\n\"'Wuest schwarz Bub!' ( = A wild black boy!)\n\n\"Rolf then received his reward, and I took a grateful leave of the\nMoekels--accompanied by little Lola.\n\n\"This experience of coming into personal contact with Rolf's powers of\nself-expression made a deep and lasting impression on me. In spite of\nall the accounts I had read and heard this living proof was almost\noverpowering in its utter novelty, and in the feeling of emotion that\ncame over me, I seemed to sense that 'Souls' Unrest' that a transition\nfrom the old conception of 'unreasoning' animals to this new cognition\nis bound to bring with it.\n\n\"My visit had been so short that I had not been able to put any\nquestions as to the method of instruction pursued. I had not been able\nto experiment personally nor get any actual advice, for Frau Dr. Moekel\nhad died in the autumn of 1915. Yet I was by no means displeased at my\nstate of ignorance when I came to reflect on the matter, for it enabled\nme to 'blaze a trail,' as it were, according to my own way of thinking,\nperhaps even, enabling me to arrive accidentally at similar or,\ndiametrically opposite results!\"\n\n\n\n\nLOLA\n\n\nLola is an Airedale terrier, born at Mannheim on 27 January, 1914, a\ndaughter of Rolf, and of the equally thorough-bred Jela. Both these\ndogs were owned by the family of a barrister, Dr. Moekel. The Airedale\nterrier resembles the dog we call a \"Schnauzer\"; it is wire-haired and\nof medium growth; generally with a greyish-black coat and yellow feet.\nIts head is covered with silky curls beneath which two bright eyes are\nseen. These dogs are distinguished for their alert and attentive\nbearing, while their excellent constitution renders them specially\nsuitable for being trained to useful pursuits; they are at the same\ntime not an over-bred race. Professor Heck, writing on the subject of\nthese dogs (see \"Communications of the Society for Animal Psychology\"),\nsays:\n\n\"We are indebted to Herr Gutbrod of Bradford for the fact that this dog\nhas already become fairly well distributed among us. If I have been\nrightly informed regarding the Airedale's history it is a crossbreed\nbetween the otter-hound and the bull-terrier, this strain having been\noriginally obtained by the factory hands of Airedale in the North of\nEngland, who thus sought to obtain a hardy dog--one not afraid of\nwater, and that would prove a useful assistant when out poaching either\nwater-fowl, hares or rabbits, occasions on which it is of importance to\ncarry out the work with as little noise as possible.\n\n\"This breed provides a favourite 'house dog'; they have proved\ninvaluable as Army Medical Service dogs, and are friendly with\nchildren. Jocularly they are called (in Germany) Petroleum dogs ( = a\nplay on the name Airedale, as pronounced in German, i.e. 'Erd-oel'\").\n\nAs already said, Lola's parents were the much spoken-of Rolf, the\nso-called \"thinking\" or \"speaking\" dog, and Jela, no longer owned by\nthe Moekels. Jela seems to have been an unimportant little animal, not\neven very affectionate as a mother. The litter Lola was dropped at\nconsisted of twelve pups; of these one died at once, and after the\nvicissitudes puppies are heirs to, those that remained and have become\nknown to us, are Heinz, Harras, Ilse, and Lola. The first-named three\nall have their different owners by whom they are being taught with a\ncertain amount of success--as indeed their reports have shown.\n\nPreviously to coming into my possession, Lola, had been removed from\nMannheim at an early age, and had passed through many hands,\nundergoing, moreover, the most various attempts of instruction. Lack of\ntime and also the war, had been answerable for these changes; twice,\nhowever, her own fidgetiness had resulted in her being deemed\nunsuitable, and it was felt that the attempt had proved a failure. Even\nFrau Dr. Moekel, into whose hands she had finally returned is said not\nto have thought much of her, having only been able to get her to learn\n\"yes\" ( = 2), and \"no\" ( = 3). I mention this, because it became clear to\nme later on that the success of such teaching does not depend solely on\nthe patience, the love and the attention, nor even on the ability to,\nor the faculty for sensing the feelings of other creatures: not on the\nsympathy nor yet on the calm of individual persons, but rather on _a\nparticular person being suited to a particular dog_.\n\nNo matter how great the ability of both the individual and the dog may\nbe, should their temperaments not be in accord--every attempt will be\nfruitless. For instance, I feel very sure that I could not have taught\nRolf; also that I shall never be able to get a sheep-dog (I still\npossess) to do more than answer \"yes\" and \"no\"; also that it would be\nthe easiest thing for me to instruct Lola's daughter Ula--and so forth.\nThere are, in short, \"winners\" and \"blanks\" and betwixt the two, every\ngrade of differentiation. Yet, is this not equally true in the case of\nteaching children? The best of teachers need not prove equally suitable\nto all his pupils, while some other will turn out to be exactly the\nright person. And this only shows us the difficulties which so\nfrequently obstruct the path of the best-intentioned people--where\ninvestigations are concerned; obstructions which they themselves\noft-times do not notice, and to which no thought is given by prejudiced\npersons. For with animals we come up against a more acute degree of\nsensitiveness than we do in a child, which, owing to certain rudiments\nof common sense, is able to adapt itself more easily to either teacher\nor investigator.\n\nLola had remained with the Moekels for some time after the decease of\nthat estimable lady; it was, however, ultimately found desirable to\nfind other homes for some of the dogs. It was about that time that my\ninquiry as to the possibility of procuring a descendant of Rolf reached\nProfessor Ziegler, and he at once seconded my application. Thus Lola\nwas kindly placed at my disposal. At first I felt some misgivings owing\nto the fact that the dog was already two years old, and had also passed\nthrough numerous hands, yet I determined to go to Mannheim, and my\nvisit took place as above narrated. Lola made a most delightful\nimpression on me, and I put few tests to my choice, for I was in a\nstate of some excitement after all that had taken place, and therefore\ntook her away with me joyfully. It had seemed as if I _must_ do this.\n\nIt was on 11 January, 1916. She sat in the railway carriage with me,\nand began to howl violently when she saw Mannheim disappearing from her\ngaze. I tried to console her, saying: \"Don't cry! You shall be quite\nhappy with me!\" It was then that Lola looked at me for the first time\nattentively. She quieted down and our friendship seemed sealed. She was\napparently resigned to her fate; she was also doubtless aware that she\nhad played \"second fiddle\" at Mannheim, and that it would, therefore,\nbe preferable to be somewhere \"on her own.\" That something of the kind\nwas passing through her mind I could see--also that she was quite aware\nthat she now belonged to me, and imagined she would be alone with me.\nThis latter surmise became evident as soon as we reached my home where\nthe sheep-dog I had had for two years rushed out to welcome me.\n\nThen Lola gazed at me with horror and disappointment; the reproach in\nher eyes was such that I could not but understand, and then--the two\ndogs flew at each other, for, in the meantime the sheep-dog had begun\nto understand too! This was remarkable, for male and female dogs do not\nas a rule fall foul of each other. For days I kept them apart in\nseparate rooms, for the mere sight of each other occasioned deep\ngrowls--indeed, my position had become distinctly uncomfortable. Then I\nsuddenly remembered having heard that if two dogs are allowed to come\ntogether--without their master being present, they will generally get\nto agree. I therefore hastily shut them both into one room, and went\nout into the fields!\n\nWhen in the course of an hour's time I came home again, each dog was\nreposing in a corner--the image of peace; there was no further fracas,\nand there has never been any trouble since. Later on, indeed, both\nbecame good friends, and often played together, but it was a risky\nexperiment and grim forebodings had beset me on that walk! But having\noccasion to apply the same cure in another case, I met with the same\nsuccess again.\n\n\n\n\nBEGINNING THE TUITION.\n\n\nLola had been four days with me--accompanying me through the house, and\nabout the farm, at first on a lead, but soon without. Her extreme\nanimation verged on wildness; I was struck with her elastic temperament\nand her constant attentiveness, and it seemed to me that this dog would\nhardly be able to sit still for five minutes. She already knew \"yes,\"\nand \"no,\" and in my joy at possessing a dog able to answer me, I put so\nmany questions to her that I began to be afraid I might do her some\ninjury. I was, in fact, so afraid, so in doubt as to my understanding,\nand so alive to my responsibilities in the matter, that I often wished\nI had not accepted the dog at all. I did not even know whether I could\n\"teach\"--much less whether I could \"teach a dog,\" whom, moreover, no\nhereditary \"urge\" would induce to attend school once she knew that this\nwould mean having to work and be attentive!\n\nDoubts as to whether the dog understood me; in what way she understood\nme; what sort of creature a dog really was--whether she could \"think,\"\n\"feel,\" or even whether she was capable of hearing in the same way as\nwe hear; able to see in the same way that we see with our eyes; whether\nshe already possessed some cognition of the human language, and whether\nthis possessed any meaning for her? For all at once I _knew_ that I\n_knew nothing_. That I had not even the least idea as to the best\nmanner to assume, whether I ought to be gentle or strict--these are but\na few of the difficulties I found myself beset by. I was, in short,\nalmost in despair. How could I presume to form an opinion, supposing\nthat, merely to my own shortcomings, the animal remained an animal,\nthat is--in as far as I was concerned--an \"animal\" in the same sense\nthat all creatures have been, since time immemorial--according to man's\nopinion? How should I dare to attempt to add my contribution to man's\nstore of knowledge in so weighty a matter without as much as knowing\nwhether I possessed the requisite patience--a genuine gift for\nimparting tuition, and a sufficient measure of devotion? Above all, how\ncould I have been so foolhardy as to have undertaken to make my\ninvestigations in connexion with a descendant of Rolf's! Indeed, my\nonly excuse could be my intense love of knowledge, my reverence and\nhigh regard for science. Science--whose temple we may enter only when\nfilled with intensest Will, and with pure Truthfulness vowed to the\nfurtherance of her Service--be the results sweet or bitter, fraught\nwith success or failure, easy or difficult, new, or along the well-worn\npaths. It was in _this_ sense that I sought to adventure--was bound to\nventure, for the die was cast. It was, therefore, with all the powers I\ncould bring to my aid that I decided to embark on my quest--no matter\nwhat the attendant results might force me to acknowledge. I would\ndisregard no test that might prove a contribution towards the solving\nof this new question.\n\nVowed to these responsibilities I sat down opposite to my dog and\nbegan. Said I to myself: She knows that she has to rap with her paws,\nand that rapping _twice_ or _three_ times does not mean the same thing;\nshe knows, therefore, that the difference between these numbers of raps\nhas some meaning. I then began to count to her on my fingers--at first\nfrom one to five and then back, finally taking the numbers irregularly\nand then holding up as many fingers as composed the number in question.\nTo my surprise the dog was quiet and attentive, and I therefore soon\ncontinued to count up to ten. In order to enforce this lesson more I\nplaced a row of small lumps of sugar in front of her, counting them as\nI did so--for it seemed to me that these might draw her attention more\nto the _numbers_. And I also rewarded her from time to time with a\nlittle bit for having sat so still. Then, holding up four fingers, I\nventured with the question: \"How many fingers do I show? Rap out the\nnumber!\" And to my joy she rapped \"4!\" Yet, thinking this might have\nbeen accidental, I held up five and said: \"Rap out this number!\" and\ntaking hold of her paw this time in order to make her tap her answer on\nthe palm of my hand. After this I ceased my questions, for it seemed\nimpossible that she should have comprehended so readily, but I went on\njust repeating the numbers to her. On the following day I also only\ncounted, and then began questioning again, for I could not understand\nwhy she refused to look at my hands any more, and was continually\nyawning. Therefore, without holding out my hands, I asked her: \"How\nmany make six?\" At which she gave six raps. I could hardly believe it,\nso I asked her: \"four?\" and she replied with four raps. I asked for\nfive, and she answered correctly. I was now confident that she did\nunderstand; but what mystified me was the celerity with which her\nanswers were given, for allowing even that she had understood, this\nswiftness seemed incomprehensible, and I decided to form no opinion\nuntil I had tested her with higher numbers, and should be in a position\nto discount the possibility of accident.\n\nOn the third day--after the preliminary counting--I got as far as ten\nby means of questions, and ten seemed for some days to be the limit\nset--calling on me to halt, as it were. This notion led me to teach the\ndog addition first so as by this means to get over the simple questions\nas to the numbers, which were always given correctly.\n\nAll this I found quite easy to do, either using my fingers or using\nlumps of sugar for my purpose; I was at the same time careful to speak\nvery distinctly and to use as few complicated phrases as possible. I\nwould say, for instance, \"Look here! two fingers and two fingers are\n1--2--3--4 fingers!\" But soon she ceased to follow with her eyes, so\nthat I became disheartened and thought I had gone ahead too rapidly,\nor, had not roused sufficient interest; not waiting for the\npsychological moment, but seeking to handle the sensitive mechanism of\na sentient creature too roughly. Yet--surely this could not be so, for,\nafter all, I was but tentatively trying, and, indeed it was open to me\n\"to try\"--even if without confidence! I then said: \"How much is two and\nfive?\" doing so without illustrating the question with my fingers, and\nthe dog rapped seven! I felt a warm thrill of delight, yet I controlled\nmy joy and proceeded with my questions, although at that moment I said\nto myself: \"A living creature has given you a conscious answer!\"\n\nWe now continued: \"1 and 3?\" Answer: \"4.\" \"2 and 6?\" Answer: \"8.\" This\nseemed to me enough for one day, and I allowed her to scamper off with\na reward for her diligence; then I sat and meditated on my experience.\nThe fact was evident: the dog had understood me--I had seen it in her\neyes. She had reflected first and had then tapped the palm of my hand\nwith unwavering certainty. I had seen the process and had felt it. Now,\nit is not wise to be guided by one's feelings alone--our judgment\nshould be unbiased, and so I decided to test these facts according to\nreason and in every conceivable way. Yet, no one having once\nexperienced what I had, could ever forget the sensation, for it was\nlike the dawning of some great truth, rising suddenly before one's\neyes--clear and immense. It appeared to me as some beautiful gift of\nlife, and I was seized with a feeling of reverence for all that may yet\nlie undiscovered. For this new light of which I had caught the first\nflash, as though reflected in some bright crystal such as I might hold\nin my hand--how I yearned to transmit it--to pass this gift--this\njoy--on to others as soon as the veil should have further lifted and\nthe horizon have become wider. And, before passing on again to the\npractical and scientific side of these investigations, I should like to\nsay that where we have to do with warm, pulsating life, feeling too has\nits rights, and must go hand-in-hand with reason. For it is feeling,\nlove and patience that must first penetrate the _subject-matter_,\nwhile to reason is assigned the studying, the weighing and the proving\nalong the path pursued by the creative, seeking spirit of man. Such is\nman: how humble by comparison is the animal! Yet should our love\nhenceforth assign to it its own place--as well as its own rights--as\nour lowlier companion in the work of life.\n\nSoon I ventured beyond ten. For lack of any more fingers I got a\ncounting frame, such as small children use at school, and the red and\nwhite wire-strung balls assisted me to explain my meaning as plainly as\nI could. I had forgotten the exact manner in which such lessons had\nbeen given me, but I hoped for the best! Indeed, \"logic\" was part and\nparcel of every step taken during this course of instruction. Never\nhaving taught before, I was desperately anxious to give a logical--a\nreasonable--explanation of everything to this other being respecting\nthose things which were quite clear to me. Those, too, who saw the dog\nwas learning something new, also felt that she seemed to arrive at what\nI explained to her with great rapidity and by exercising thought; that,\nmoreover, she understood the matter as I understood it, and all were\nconvinced that there could be no doubt but that she _did think_.\n\nI asked her, \"14,\" \"12,\" \"15\"? And the right answers were given. Then\nit occurred to me that with these high numbers the rapping must be an\nexertion, especially over a period of time, and I then called to mind\nabout Krall's horses who had rapped out the decimals with their left\nhoof, and the units with their right. The next thing, therefore, was to\nmake her understand the difference between \"right\" and \"left.\" I took\neach paw in turn, saying \"right paw!\" and \"left paw!\" And it took her\nlonger to remember that than I had expected, seeing how quick she had\nbeen up to the present. Yet, at length this too was accomplished and\nshe gave each paw without mistake. Strange as it may seem, I found\nlater on that abstract reckoning and spelling came easily enough, while\nthe movements of any particular portion of the body--with the exception\nof those habitually practised--were always attended with greater\ndifficulty. It would seem as if she understood rightly enough _with her\nhead_, but had some trouble in translating what she understood into\nactive motion; and this applies to all, excepting, of course, such\nmovements as are the result of heredity, where no words, but some other\nincentive, such as \"scent\" may possibly come into play. It is difficult\nfor human beings to grasp that there is life in the sub-conscious, and\nthat it is in those sub-conscious regions that the will to act arises.\n\nI now explained to her: \"When you give your _left_ paw _once_, it is to\ncount as _ten_; when you give your _right_ paw _once_, it is to count\nas _one only_. For, you see, if we go on counting there is too much\nwork for one paw to do and it takes too long. Therefore if you want to\nsay '12,' you must give the _left_ paw _once_, and the _right_ paw\n_twice_.\" I repeated this several times and then asked: \"How do you rap\nfifteen?\" And Lola rapped one (10) with the left paw and five times\nwith the right. It was evident that she had understood me perfectly!\n\nThis gave me confidence, and that day we did additions up to twenty,\nall of which were successful. Indeed, the dog showed much interest in\nher work, and came to it readily. As a rule ten to fifteen minutes in\nthe morning, and another quarter of an hour in the afternoon was\nlesson-time. As the results were generally successful, I was sometimes\ntempted to continue my questions for a little longer, and she would go\non answering until at length she began to sigh--then I knew that she\nwas tired. And after such extra exertion I would notice the next day\nboth by the pupils of her eyes and her nervous trembling, that she had\nbeen over-worked--and the thought of it makes me feel ashamed, even to\nthis day; for, was I not undertaking the whole study for the sake of\nanimal creation, and to think that I might have been inflicting any\ncruelty was unbearable. And, indeed, as time went on, this did not\noccur again, for I kept a keener watch. Soon, too, her capabilities\nincreased, and she was able to fulfil more easily the greater demands\nmade on her when answering to questions. With regard to decimals and\nunits, I made a discovery which is, I think, worth stating. The dog did\nnot look at me, but seemed, on the contrary (on this occasion), much\ninterested in gnawing the leg of a chair, and I thought she could not\nhave understood me, or else she would surely have looked up at me. Yet,\nshe had apparently only done this to cover her confusion--as it were!\nIndeed, this was evident from her expression, and she had heard\neverything right enough, for she then--and ever after--rapped her\nreplies without \"visualizing\"--and I mentally returned thanks to Karl\nKrall for the practical advice he had given me, and which had been so\nopportune. Rolf rapped with one paw only, as has already been stated;\none was, therefore, obliged at length to put the question to him: \"1 or\n10?\" And Rolf would then say \"yes\" or \"no,\" as the case might be. This\nis confusing for the onlookers, and, as a matter of fact, when I saw\nhim at Mannheim I never knew for certain what number he had indicated.\nBut with Krall's method of using alternate hoof or paw, any confusion\nor doubt is ruled out.\n\n\n\n\nCONTINUED TUITION\n\n\nLola and I had now become to some extent accustomed to each other, and\nthe daily progress assisted this mutual understanding. I felt that I\nhad become calmer and more self-possessed, and this, too, reacted on\nthe dog. I did my best to make the subjects interesting, and I soon had\nonly to call her to lessons for her to scamper up to me quite eager to\nbegin. I also attempted to make her understand that she would be able\nto help other dogs--in fact, help all dear animals, if she was\nindustrious, thus showing people how much a dog could do--when it was\nable to count and spell! I told her how much kinder people would then\nbe to animals, instead of treating them as though they were no better\nthan wood or stone, and I instanced all Rolf could do, and told her of\nthe good uses his abilities had been put to. And from thence forward I\nrewarded her for every good bit of work with either biscuits or sugar,\non the principle that any creature that works is worthy of wage, since\nman receives either food or money. And I would here like to say that I\nonce heard that the judges examining both Rolf and the horses had taken\nexception to the fact of the animals being encouraged to work by being\ngiven \"rewards\"; where, I wonder, is the man who will labour\nunrequited? There will, of course, always be exceptional individuals\nwho will do a thing _for its own sake_--yet--after all--do not _they_,\ntoo, seek their reward? albeit in a more idealistic manner, since it\nwill consist in the success of their undertaking.\n\nYet these gentlemen thought that animals ought to exhibit the ethical\nsingle-mindedness of exceptional individuals! The \"mere beast\"--so\nbelittled, as a rule that it is vouchsafed less \"right to the earth\"\nthan is the sole of a man's foot! How significant this may be said to\nbe of the mental attitude in which these gentlemen sat in judgment:\nmen, who, doubtless, considered they were doing their very utmost in\nthe service of science!\n\nAfter Lola had mastered the numerals as far as twenty I started her at\nsimple multiplication, explaining these again on my fingers and the\ncounting frame and here, too, I found her a ready pupil. Indeed, there\nreally _does_ seem something so very obvious in 2 and 2 things being 4\nthings! and we proceeded by degrees to multiply up to fifty.\n\nI would say, for instance, over the morning coffee: \"Lola, to-day the\nfours are to have a turn: 1 x 4 = 4, 2 x 4 = 8,\" and I would let her\nmultiply with four about three times, straight on from the beginning\nfirst, and then dodging about irregularly. She usually did this without\nany mistake whatever, and I was now getting quite used to the celerity\nwith which she worked. The only difficulties were in connexion with 10\nx 3 and 10 x 4, where she would constantly make a slip, for then the\nleft paw came into action, and her consciousness was not yet\nsufficiently concentrated on that left paw. Dogs and horses must, I\nimagine, have a most splendid faculty for visualizing figures--to judge\nfrom the rapidity with which they work.\n\nIt took us nine days to accomplish the multiplication table from two to\nten, keeping up, of course, a repetition of what had already been\nlearnt. This great speed is another point that often gives rise to\ndoubts, yet it is found to be equally the case with all animals who are\ntaught: I cannot account for it--I can merely say that it is so. I have\nthought at times that the reason may lie in the fact that dogs and\nhorses have but a short span of life in comparison to man's, and\ntherefore, a briefer period of youth wherein to acquire their stock of\nlearning; that this might account for an animal being quicker than a\nchild, which has ampler time and seems to need it all in order to lay a\nthorough foundation, since the multitude of subsequent impressions\nwould otherwise swamp all our earliest rudimentary learning.\n\nLola answered splendidly. It now happened at times that I myself made\nmistakes and believing the fault to be hers, have said: \"That is\nwrong!\" But she was not to be put out, and stuck to her reply. Then, on\ngoing over it I would find that she was right after all!\n\nI often put my question thus: \"7 x 4 = ?\" and the reply would be--left\npaw 2, right paw 8: then: \"9 x 3 = ?\" Answer: left paw 2, right paw 7;\nand again, \"6 x 6 = ?\" Answer: left paw 3, right paw 6. How accurate a\ntest this was might be gathered from the sure and quiet way in which\nshe tapped the palm of my hand, first with her left paw three times,\nand then with the right, six. I held my hand quite flat, slantingly and\nimmovable--there was nothing about it that could convey any sort of\nsign to her, otherwise she would not sometimes have rapped either less\nor more than I expected, as has happened both in her spelling and at\nher sums.\n\nMy thoughts now turned to the business of spelling and the replies to\nbe here obtained. A total of figures from 1-40 would suffice in order\nto give expression to all the letters, while the same degree of\ncomprehension of my spoken word was all I required. Then I began to\ntell Lola some four or five letters of her alphabet daily, questioning\nher as to each. Every day I repeated the lesson learnt on the previous\none, and added four or five more letters. Her alphabet sounds as\nfollows:\n\n    +-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+------+------+\n    |   a   |   e   |   i   |   o   |  u  |  au  |  ei  |\n    |   -   |   -   |   -   |   -   |  -  |   -  |  --  |\n    |   4   |   5   |   6   |   7   |  8  |   9  |  10  |\n    +-------|-------|-------|-------|-----|------|------+\n    | b & p | d & t | f & v | s & k |  ch |   ue  |   h  |\n    | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- |  -- |  --  |  --  |\n    |  14   |   15  |   16  |   17  |  20 |  21  |  24  |\n    +-------|-------|-------|-------|-----|------|------+\n    |   l   |   m   |   n   |     r |   s |   w  |   z  |\n    |   --  |  --  |    -   |     - |  -- |  --  |  --  |\n    |  25   |  26   |   27  |   34  |  35 |  36  |  37  |\n    +-------|-------|-------|-------|-----|------|------+\n    |       |       |  ja   |  nein |     |      |      |\n    |       |       |  --   |  ---- |     |      |      |\n    |       |       |   2   |   3   |     |      |      |\n    +-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+------+------+\n\nIt is particularly to be observed that the letters were pronounced as\nfollows: K as k,' not as ka ( = kay); H as h,' not as ha ( = aitch); R\nas r, not as er ( = ar;) L as l,' not as el: this was so as to free her\n\"writing\" of any extraneous difficulties. Rolf of Mannheim rapped out\nthe \"e\" in \"w\" ( = _vay_ being the German pronunciation of \"w\"), as\nalso in \"g\" ( = _gay_ being the German pronunciation of \"g\"); thus, if\nhe wanted to write \"wegen,\" he simply rapped \"w g n.\" Now, I wanted\nLola to learn to rap the entire word--\"wegen,\" for instance, for this\nsimplification of expression, as put into practice by Rolf, would be of\nno use to her in view of the method of pronunciation I was adopting\nwith the consonants. Those who had taught Rolf understood his spelling\nquite as well as I in time came to understand Lola's, but with regard\nto their system the objection was frequently put forward (more\nespecially by persons bent on maintaining an unfriendly attitude) that\n\"any construction might be placed on these answers,\" and, I must admit,\nthat there was some truth in this. Not that this objection could always\nbe justified, yet there were sufficient grounds for it. The great value\nof Rolf's mode of expressing himself was shown in the way in which he\nadded letter to letter in accordance with their sounds (and I doubt\nwhether any mechanical aids or accessories would have been likely to\nachieve the same results), thus giving proof that he was capable of\nindependent expression. Their system proved incidentally to have what I\nmight call a \"side value,\" for Lola's mode of expression, due to my own\nmethod of teaching led to quite different results--_yet on the same\nlevel_.\n\nLola now practised her alphabet in the morning and in the afternoon we\ncontinued multiplications; rather more slowly than at first, but we\nultimately reached a hundred. New work was then added in the form of\ndivision and subtraction. She soon had this all so firmly fixed in her\nlittle head that I was able to put her to easy sums and ask: \"What is 3\nx 3 + 10 - 5?\" The answer after a few seconds being \"14.\" A hundred was\nrapped out with her left paw = ten raps.\n\nAs soon as she had mastered the entire alphabet I proceeded to contract\nthe letters into words. I said: \"Lola, now attend; you are going to\nlearn to spell: you must rap out a word made of the letters you have\nlearnt; now--Wald (wood or forest) is w, a, l, d,\" and I accentuated\neach letter very distinctly. \"How many letters are there in this word?\"\nI added, and the answer was \"4.\"\n\n\"Good,\" I said, adding: \"What is the first letter?\" and she tapped in\nreply: \"36/w\"; \"and the next?\" \"4/a\"; \"and then?\" \"25/l\"; \"and further?\"\n\"4/a.\" \"Lola now listen to all the words I am going to say: essen ( = to\neat, also \"food\"), e, s, s, e, n; gut ( = good), g, u, t; milch ( =\nmilk), m, i, l, c, h\"; and so on. For many days I continued to name the\nwords which lay nearest to her understanding, and each day I got her to\ndo a little spelling, after first having divided the letters. But at\nthe end of eight days I no longer took the words to pieces merely\nsaying, very distinctly: \"rap Ofen\" ( = stove), and she would tap: \"7 16\n5 27\" = o f e n. \"Rap Haus\" ( = house). This answer was: \"24, 4, 9, 35\"\n= h, a, u, s. Whenever she rapped I jotted down the figures in order to\ntranslate them later on into letters, for it was some time before I\ncould sufficiently memorize their equivalents, and was constantly\nmaking mistakes after Lola had become an \"expert.\" Indeed, one's memory\nis easily liable to play tricks here in a way that may lead to endless\nconfusion, for the sequence of the numbers is so at variance with what\none is accustomed to.\n\nOnce I asked--by way of experiment--\"What is this?\" touching her nose.\nAt first she seemed uncertain, but then came the reply: \"3\" = nein\n(no); so I said: \"Lola, that is your _nose_; tap nose!\" and she\ntapped--\"27, 4, 35, 5\" = nase (nose). \"Good!\" I said, \"and what is\n_this_?\" and I touched her eye, to which she at once replied with--\"9,\n17\" = aug (auge = eye); she had apparently not been quite sure of what\nI wanted when I touched her nose.\n\nAnd so we went on practising--sometimes doing too much, and this would\ngive her a headache, but she had also learnt how to communicate this\nfact to me and would rap: \"36, 5\" = we (weh = pain, or hurt); nor was\nthis malingering, for she worked willingly, doing so, indeed, to the\nutmost limits of her strength, when it would become apparent, alas! to\nanyone who saw her that her head was aching. This tendency to \"keep\ngoing\" is common to all our faithful domestic animals: more\nparticularly is it the case with draft-animals, who will go on till\nthey drop. There are very few that consciously resist work, or who\nhumbug us by pretending they are ill. Yet, as I had told Rolf, we had\none of these exceptions at the farm; it was an ox that would always lie\ndown and sham dead, if not in the mood to work; he then stretched out\nhis limbs and looked at his last gasp ... but no sooner did we leave\nhim to himself than he was on his legs again and off to his stall. No\namount of chastisement brought him to reason. And it was this immoral\naction that had jumped with Rolf's views when--without having been\nasked--he at once remarked: \"Hat recht, lol sagen Bauchweh!\" an excuse\nhe is reported to have made very often of late.\n\nI now tried to teach Lola to read the numbers, for she was thoroughly\nat home in all we had practised so far, so it did not seem too much of\na venture. I cogitated, therefore, how best to begin; and finally I\nwrote on a sheet of paper as follows:\n\n    1   2     3     4       5       6\n    .   ..   ...   ....   .....   ......\n\nand so on up to 10.\n\nI then held this a few inches (40 centimetres) from her eyes and,\npointing to each, said: \"_One_ dot looks like 1,\" etc. And then I wrote\na 2 on a slip of paper and asked her what number it stood for. At the\nstart this gave her a good deal of trouble, and I had to do a great\ndeal of talking. She saw the dot right enough, but would give no\nattention to the figure. I helped her twice to compare the two, and\nthen set the sheet up near the place where she usually lay, taking for\ngranted that in the course of the day her eye would be bound to rest on\nit so frequently that she would probably have retained the impression\nby the next day. And something of this kind must have happened; for on\nthe following morning after having gone through the explanation once\nmore, and put the sheet aside, I wrote the figures at random all over\nanother sheet of paper when she actually \"spotted\" them all--with the\nexception of \"7,\" and a comparison of the two sheets soon enabled her\nto put this right, too. There could be no doubt but that she had really\nmastered her lesson, for the replies were rapped out with absolute\ncertainty. I next attempted two-figured numerals; nor was this very\ndifficult, for in 32, for instance, the 3 was rapped by the left--the\n\"decimal\" paw--and therefore meant \"30,\" while the \"2\" was added by two\nraps from the right paw; in fact, she memorized this without any\ntrouble--and for a few days we practised \"reading numbers\" assiduously,\nso as to get her perfect.\n\nHere is an example:\n\n    20 + 14?  Answer: 34.                     24 + 32?  Answer: 56.\n                       11 + 15 + 2?  Answer: 28\n\nHere again the most surprising thing was the celerity with which the\nreplies were given. I was at first inclined to _make_ her look at the\npaper attentively, but she would merely glance over it, then came a\nmoment of quick thought--and the answer was ready. (I propose to return\nto this point again in the chapter on \"Seeing.\")\n\nIn the course of such exercises it is no exaggeration to say that one\ndoes actually _see_, by an alteration in the eye, that the dog is\nthinking; the gaze is withdrawn, so to speak, as it is in the eye of a\nperson engaged in the process of thinking; and then brightens when the\nresult has been attained. I have often been so absorbed in contemplating\nthis process in Lola that I have almost forgotten to continue the work\nwe were engaged on.\n\nAs the lessons progressed it became easy to teach her to read the\nletters, for she now knew what it was all about, and she soon picked up\nthe figures requisite for any given letter. Personally, I always use\nthe Latin script for writing, and it was therefore more convenient to\nteach her this form rather than the Gothic, but for the sake of\nsimplicity I made use of the small characters only. I wrote these out\non a sheet of paper, taking care to make them very large, and with the\nequivalent figure under each--thus:\n\n    a   e   i   o   u   au   ei\n    4   5   6   7   8   9    10\n\nand so on.\n\nI then gave a short explanation and stood the sheet on the floor\nagain--just as I had done in the case of the figures.\n\nThe next day I questioned her, taking the precaution to write out a few\nletters on another piece of paper, so as to be able, by comparing the\ntwo, to know what the word was at once. In a few instances the right\nanswers were given immediately, but there was still a great deal of\nuncertainty. I suppose the entire alphabet at one dose had been too\nmuch for her! But I tried her again in the afternoon--going over the\nletters carefully, and set up the card once more, to \"jog her memory.\"\nAnd the next morning she knew it nearly to perfection, and was able to\nfollow with her raps such words as--h, o, l, z, (holz = wood), for I\ntook care to separate the letters, fearing she would otherwise get\nconfused. Whenever she seemed in doubt over some letter I had recourse\nto her alphabet card, and made her look it up herself.\n\nI began to feel that the foundation for all that was most important had\nnow been laid, and that at no distant future I should be able to ask\nher all kinds of questions, and my joy was great. For now the moment\nwas at hand when I might hope to gain insight into the very being of\nthis dog, get into touch with its thinking and its feeling--all of\nwhich was so immeasurably strange to me. Yet what I here anticipated\nwas not to be reached in so short a span of time as had hitherto\nsufficed for her other studies. For the present Lola spelt out no more\nthan I told her to, and I continued practising her diligently, for I\nfelt sure that as long as it gave her any trouble a more lengthy\nanswer--and more especially, a _spontaneous_ one--would not be\nforthcoming. It had taken one month of study to accomplish all I have\nhere set down, and I felt both grateful, happy, and not a little\nawed--and, indeed, I did my best to thank her by my sympathy and\nconsideration. It was only later that I came to see my own inconsistency!\n\nThe elementary tuition, the form of which I had tentatively evolved was\nnow at an end; and constant practice in the four modes of arithmetic,\nas well as in reading and spelling, kept her perfect. But it became\nimportant to make occasional experiments of longer or shorter duration;\nsuch tests might be either in support of, or in opposition to, each\nother, and of these I now propose to treat in the following pages, for\nthey represent the \"digest\" of what had so far been learnt.\n\n\n\n\nSENSE OF TIME\n\n\nWe often hear that dogs whose masters lead a very regular life get to\nknow the time and the hours of the day's routine--such as walks and\nmeals showing this by their behaviour. It might be easy to account for\ntheir intimate acquaintance with the hours of meals, since their\nstomach is practically their clock. But that a dog should know to a\n\"tic\" the time for his master's departure from the house--whatever the\nseason of the year, tugging him by his coat--should he not be ready, or\nfetching his stick--allows of no other explanation than that of a\ncanine sense of time.\n\nThis consideration led me to try and teach Lola our divisions of time\non the clock in order to make my experiment in this direction. I took a\nclock on which the figures were inscribed in Arabic, and of which the\ndial--measuring 5 centimetres across (2 inches), was sufficiently plain\nto read. I then explained to her that a day and a night were divided\ninto 24 parts: I said to her: \"The day-time is light, and people can\nthen go about, and eat and work; at night it is dark, and people and\nanimals sleep--do you understand me?\" She replied: \"Yes!\" (two raps). I\nsaid: \"Into how many parts are the day and night divided?\" and she\nanswered: \"24,\" \"These portions,\" I continued, \"are called hours, and\none hour is again divided into sixty parts, and these are called\nminutes; and so as always to know what are the hours, and what are the\nminutes, people have made a clock--now look here: so as not to make it\ntoo big they have written only twelve hours on it and this thick little\npointer goes round slowly and points to the number of the hours: now,\nhow often must it go round in a day, if a day has 24 hours?\" She\nreplied: \"2.\"\n\n\"You see, the little thick pointer is now pointing to _nine_, so it is\n9 o'clock; what time will it be when it points to 4?\" She answered:\n\"4.\" \"You remember that I told you that the hour is divided into 60\nminutes?\" \"Yes.\" \"Now--see! the big pointer goes round more quickly and\npoints out the minutes: when _that_ pointer has been round _once_, 60\nminutes are gone--that means one hour. This big pointer starts at 12,\nand you see that there are five little strokes up to 1, and how many up\nto 2?\" Lola rapped \"10.\" \"And where is the big pointer now?\" \"(At) 14.\"\n\"What is 14--is it an hour?\" \"No.\" \"Then what is it called?\" \"Minute.\"\nAnd after this Lola rested!\n\nIn an hour and a quarter I fetched the clock again and said: \"Look!\nwhat does the little thick pointer say now?\" She tapped an uncertain\n\"no.\" So I explained once more and then said: \"Now tell me!\" and she\nanswered this time, \"50.\"\n\nI stood the clock on the ground in front of her and questioned her\ntwice more in the course of the day--correct replies being given. I\nalso left the clock standing near her for the rest of the day, for I\nwanted the flight of time to become impressed on her, and her eye was\nbound to rest on the dial now and again during the course of the day.\nHer answers were invariably right now for, by way of test, I inquired:\n\"How many minutes are there in half an hour?\" And she replied: \"30.\"\nAnd again: \"How many minutes has a quarter of an hour--that is, an hour\ndivided by 4?\" And she answered: \"15.\" She also showed much interest in\nall this, for she sat as still as could be, listening attentively to\nall my explanations. And I kept her interest alive by always telling\nher \"what nice new things Lola would be able to learn,\" and at this she\nwas visibly pleased.\n\nThe next day I made casual remarks as to the time of day out loud, and\nall this day's answers were equally good. I now saw that she had\ngrasped the essentials--so that I could put the clock away, and there\nis not another in my rooms, the nearest being a big one standing in the\nkitchen which is on the ground floor. I never carry my watch, leaving\nit in a drawer--and generally forgetting to wind it up, so that if I do\nnot ask, I seldom know what the time is. I have no sense of time\nwhatever myself, so that to me it may seem either long or\nshort--according to what I may be doing. I have always envied people\nwho possessed this sense of absolute certainty in guessing the time--it\nis not a common gift. I make this remark \"parenthetically\" in my desire\nfor trying to elucidate the causes which lie at the back of the\n\"feeling for time.\"\n\nOn the third day after my first explanations I said to Lola in the\ncourse of the morning: \"Tell me what time it is. I daresay you know\nwithout seeing the clock!\" To which she answered \"Yes!\" \"Then tell me\nthe hour first,\" I said, and she rapped: \"10;\" \"And now the minutes?\"\n\"35.\" I then went downstairs and found that the kitchen clock pointed\nto 10.30, but I was told that it was not quite exact, so I telephoned\nto the Post Office, and inquired the correct time--asking again in the\nafternoon when it was 4.17. I then said to Lola: \"Tell me the hour?\"\n\"4,\" said she. \"And the minutes?\" \"18.\" I made this test several times\nmore, and as the replies were invariably right I could regard this\nexperiment as successful. After this I allowed her to show off her\naccomplishment to various people, and as long as the novelty appealed\nto her Lola always told the time correctly and earned much praise. In\nthe presence of Dr. Ziegler and others she gave a most excellent\naccount of herself, and I frequently made practical use of her as my\n\"timepiece.\" The change-over to \"summer-time\" created some slight\nconfusion, but this was only temporarily, and was soon overcome. Later,\nhowever, she frequently _gave the wrong time_!--it was only the charm\nof novelty that spurred her on to her best endeavours!\n\nSince then I have not questioned her as often--perhaps only once a\nweek, and her replies have varied, some being very good. Only to-day (I\nam writing on 31 December, 1916) I asked her the time; it was very\ndusk, and I thought it must be nearly 5 o'clock, but Lola rapped out:\n\"4\"--\"And how many minutes?\" I inquired. \"No!\" came the reply.\n\"Nonsense!\" I cried, \"there must be some minutes as well?\" \"No!\" she\ninsisted. So I went and assured myself, believing Lola to have been\nobstinate, but no, it was actually only just four!\n\nIt may be taken for granted, I presume, that all dogs have this\ntime-sense in a greater or lesser degree, and not only all dogs, but\nother animals also, for there are sufficient proofs to justify this\nassertion. Sportsmen, in particular, will be able to furnish examples\nin support of the theory. That Lola was able to \"tell the time\" was, of\ncourse, merely a matter of tuition, this having awakened her latent\nconsciousness, and enabled her to master the signs.\n\nIn the summer of 1916 I purchased a grey parrot with the object of\nfurther studies. This bird, being very tame, was allowed to sit on the\nback of my chair and enjoy a few tit-bits at meal times. I always,\ncarried him on my hand from his cage to the chair, as he would not come\ndown from the cage--preferring to clamber about without and within. One\nevening I had been delayed, and did not appear as punctually as usual.\nMy maid told me, however, that the parrot had left his cage at eight\no'clock, gone straight to my chair, climbed up, and was even at that\nmoment sitting on the back-rail waiting for me!\n\nHow sensibly animals are equipped as to the requisites of life!\nProbably man was, too--at one time; at a time when he stood nearer to\nNature, and before his inventions and manifold accessories had weaned\nhim from so much that was inherent and inborn knowledge.\n\n\n\n\nCALCULATING TIME\n\n\nAt first I proposed to achieve this by building on the foundations I\nhad already laid, on the dog's fairly reliable comprehension of the\nvalue of figures, and her knowledge of spelling. So I wrote on a large\nsheet of paper and in small characters:[14]\n\n    1 jar (jahr = year) = 365 days.\n    7 tage ( = days) = 1 woche ( = week).\n    so for 1 jar = 52 wochen = 365 tage.\n\nThe days of the week are called:--\n\n    1 montag.\n    2 dinstag (dienstag).\n    3 mitwoch (mittwoch).\n    4 donerstag (donnerstag).\n    5 freitag.\n    6 samstag.\n    7 sontag (Sonntag); no work for Lola!\n\n      [14] So as to avoid confusing her I always write the _sound_\n      only.\n\nThis was to be--at the same time--a test of Lola's reading. I placed\nthe chart on the floor where she could look at it, and repeated:\n\"To-morrow you must be able to know this. Now spell the first word to\nme. And she tapped \"jar.\" I once more went over this new lesson,\nexplaining it all, but put no more questions, only leaving the paper\nwhere she could from time to time look at it.\n\nThe next day I removed the chart early, and later began my questioning;\nfully prepared for somewhat crazy results. First I asked:\n\n\"How many days are there in a week?\" She rapped \"7.\"\n\n\"And in three weeks?\" \"21.\"\n\n\"How many weeks has a year?\" \"52.\"\n\nI praised her warmly--her interest seemed roused, for she had rapped\nher answers with a sort of joyful certainty! So I continued:\n\n\"Name the second day in the week?\" \"dinstag!\"\n\n\"And what is the day called on which you do no work?\" \"sontag!\"\n\n\"And which day in the week is that?\" \"7.\"\n\nI then said: \"To-day is Tuesday; now remember the days carefully:\nto-morrow, and the day after to-morrow--and the next you must always\ntell me the name of the day on which I ask.\" I then dropped the\nsubject, and tested her on the morrow: \"What is to-day?\" \"Mitwoch!\" I\nnext questioned her at random as to the weeks and the year, and all her\nanswers were correct. I was very surprised on this occasion at the\nshort time she had taken--in spite of the rapidity of so much of her\nearlier work, and I began to feel a sense of certainty as to the\npossibility of making greater demands on her. Hitherto Lola had always\nbeen able to prove to those who have seen her at her performances that\nshe _can_ state the day of the week correctly, yet of late she has no\nlonger taken the same delight in doing so; it has become \"a bore\"--and\nfor this reason she is now only asked two or three times a month. Four\ndays after she had learnt this accomplishment I tackled the dates. At\nfirst it was rather difficult to explain to her _why_ a year, which\nwas already divided into weeks, should be again sub-divided into\nmonths--within which, moreover, the weeks could not be disposed of in\ncomplete numbers. Once more I made out my chart, and wrote down\neverything as I had done on previous occasions, but with divisions into\ntwelve parts. Then I wrote out the months and placed the number of days\nafter each, making the addition at the bottom of the chart come to 365.\nI then explained to her that, besides being divided into weeks, the\nyear was also divided into months, so that each day of the year might\nbe more easily remembered. I told her that for instance--\"this day was\nSaturday; that it was in the month of March, and that to-day was the\n13th of March.\" That \"yesterday had been Friday, the 12th of March, and\nthat to-morrow would be the 14th,\" and so forth. Then I left my chart\non the floor again, and did not refer to the subject any more that day.\n\nOn Sunday Lola was seldom given anything to do so that the divisions of\nthe week should be firmly planted in her memory. Having, therefore,\nremoved the chart on Sunday, I asked her on Monday:\n\n\"How many months has the year?\" Answer: \"12.\"\n\n\"And what is the second month called?\" \"February.\"\n\nShe was very eager and giving her undivided attention to the work, so I\ncontinued: \"What day is to-day?\" \"Monday.\" \"What number is this day?\"\n\"12.\" Now, this was wrong, so I said: \"Yesterday was the 14th, so what\nis to-day?\" And she replied: \"15.\" I said: \"How many days has March?\"\nAnswer: \"31.\" This last answer seemed to me the most astonishing,\nespecially as I had not really laid much stress on this part of the\nlesson--fearing I might be expecting too much from her at the\nbeginning. As a matter of fact, I was myself by no means sure as to the\nnumber of days in March, and had to verify it first! Up to this day\nLola has not forgotten how many days there are in each month, although\nthis question has merely been asked now and again; it has not been put\nto her now for about nine months. Owing to the regularity of my daily\nwork I take but little heed of dates, so it comes that I have often put\nthe question to her, for when I _do_ ask it is of importance to me to\nhave accurate information, and I have always been able to rely on\nLola's quick and steady rap, subsequent reference invariably proving\nthat I can place implicit confidence in her.\n\n\n\n\nSIGHT\n\n\nA dog's sight hardly plays so important a part in canine life as do\nscent and hearing; yet, inferior as the eye would seem in some\nrespects, it yet excels in others. It may be observed in the case of\nany dog that he only recognizes his master or any person he is\nacquainted with at a distance of--at most--20 metres. If either my old\nsheep-dog or Lola come to meet me they do not see first _at all_ that\nthere is a person standing on the road. If one moves, the dog will then\nrecognize at a distance of some 50 metres, that a human being is in\nfront of it--the movements being responsible for this. Then, when one\ngets within 10 or 20 metres, the cautious and critical aspect changes,\nand the dog will rush forward in joyous welcome. This is enough to show\nthat in comparison to our sight, theirs is inferior; and there are dogs\nthat see even much worse than in the case just cited. To test this it\nis well to stand against the wind, otherwise the dog scents what it\ncannot see. It is the same case with game. At the distance, therefore,\nthe canine eye does not seem quick of sight, but it becomes all the\nsharper at close quarters. Here the swift glance and good memory far\nout-strip our own equipment.\n\nIt was conspicuous from the beginning--both in counting and\nspelling--that Lola was able to learn and memorize in a surprisingly\nshort time. Lola's charts of figures and letters were written in my\nnone-too-clear handwriting--and yet she could remember combinations of\nfigures amounting to ten in number from one day to the other. She could\nalso recognize persons from their portraits, and pictures of objects\nfamiliar to her, a faculty of observation I have tested in numerous\nlittle ways. This gift was also possessed by Krall's horses and by\nRolf. People seem to have the idea that dogs do not observe much, but\nthere is no valid reason for this. Children in their _naivete_ will\nshow their picture-book to a dog as to a friend: \"Look here!\" they will\ncry--it is only the _exception_ when it occurs to a \"grown-up\" to do\nthe same.\n\nI can only say that I have convinced myself and proved to the\nastonishment of many that a dog _can_ recognize both the letters of\nthe alphabet and the subject of a picture shown to it.\n\nNot that these abilities exceed those of man, at first sight, but when\nthe matter is probed into deeply they _do_ out-strip ours in one\nparticular, and that is in celerity. For instance, if I write three or\nfour rows of figures, one beneath the other, doing so quickly, without\nmaking any calculation myself, and then hold the paper before Lola's\neyes, so that I can look into them, I see her glance skim the figures\nfor a second or two, she will then hang her head, in evident\ncalculation--after which she looks out straight in front of her and\nraps her reply. Rarely does her glance go over the paper a second time.\nIn early days I used to think that, before holding out my hand to\nreceive her answer, I ought to hold her head firmly and oblige her to\nkeep her eyes on the sheet, for it seemed to me she must needs look at\nit for five minutes--_at least_. But Lola always tries hard to avoid\nlooking--so I let her have her own way, and am trying to account for\nthe cause of this quick glance by a closer study. It was the same thing\nwhen I wrote down a question--her eye flew over the sentence in three\nor four seconds, and the answer was given without a second glance.\nPeople to whom I have not said anything about this have stood behind me\nduring these tests, and have generally been more impressed by the fact\nof her _reading_ them than by the _swiftness_ with which it was done.\nBut it is the latter that amazed me most of all, for reading she and we\nhave in common--and is indeed so far simpler a matter that there is no\nreason for a dog not acquiring it--but it is the _comprehension_ of\nwhat it is doing, and the _speed_ with which it translates what it has\nseen into intelligent replies that seem to me the most surprising part\nof all. Another instance in connexion with what I term the \"cursory\nglance\" may throw light upon this curious ability. I had heard of the\nway in which Rolf was able to count the flowers in a bunch, and so--on\nthe 16 April, 1917, I thought I would try something of the same kind\nwith Lola. For this lesson I took a sheet of paper and peppered it with\ndots, without any thought at regularity.\n\n       *   *   *   *   *   *\n     *   *   *   *   *   *   *\n       *   *   *   *   *   *\n     *   *   *   *   *   *   *\n       *   *   *   *   *   *\n\nLola's first answer after looking at it for about four seconds was\n\"34.\" \"Are you sure?\" I asked; \"tell me again.\" She then responded with\n\"32.\" I took my pencil, scratching out each dot as I went over\nthem--there were just 32!\n\nAs she had hesitated in the first test I thought I might have made the\ndots too small, so taking another bit of paper I proceeded to make dots\nof a larger size. \"How many?\" I asked again. Answer: \"14.\" I then\nchecked this reply and found it right. The next day I covered another\nsheet with dots, but this time of various sizes. Lola rapped \"27.\" \"Are\nyou sure?\" I asked. \"Yes!\" So I counted, and there were 23. \"Count\nagain!\" I commanded. \"27,\" said she. \"Lola, I can only make them 23;\"\n\"27!\" insisted this dog! I could not make out the reason for this,\nunless, that owing to there being some writing on the reverse side, a\nfew marks may have shown through, and thus account for the wrong\nanswer.\n\nOn 19 April I made an attempt with red dots, but she was tired, and\nrapped out first 25, then 23 and finally 19--there were 19 dots. Then I\nmade some blue dots and she rapped \"11.\" \"Are you sure?\" Again \"11.\"\nAnd this, too, was right.\n\nI put this test several times and it was always successful when the\ndots were sufficiently large and regular and did not exceed 35; also if\nthe colour was dark--either blue or black. Later on, when I read\nKrall's book I found that the horses had been submitted to this test\nwith equally good results. Professor Kraemer of Hohenheim attributes\nthe reason for this to the fact of animals having originally lived in\nherds, and that their \"leader\" as well as the other horses always knew\nwhether their full complement was present or not. I have had the same\nexperience with clucking-hens. A clucking-hen with twelve chicks knows\nat once should one be missing, and seeks it even when it cannot utter a\nsound, and while all the rest of her brood are running about in such\nconfusion that it would seem impossible to count them oneself. How\nanimals manage to do this without a sense of figures and without words\nalways remains a puzzle to me! Now, the measure taken by a dog's eye is\nalmost as accurate as is its sight for near objects, and its swift\nglance and comprehensive eye for detail. It is true that all these\ntests have been put to my dog Lola _alone_, but I venture to say\nthat these facts will be found to apply to all dogs in common, should\nthey belong to a natural and healthy breed of animals, and not to an\nartificially procured variety.\n\nAs to \"measuring by eye,\" this was a test put to her accidentally.\nAbout the beginning of June, 1917, for lack of any better idea at the\nmoment, I determined to teach her the use of the yard measure (the\nmetre), and without having any definite object in view. So I fetched\nthe yard-stick and told her the names and the meaning of the divisions\nthree times; but she seemed unable to work up any enthusiasm for the\nsubject, and I therefore did not attempt to question her. Many duties\nintervened, and so I forgot the whole matter for several weeks. But on\n25 July I thought it might be just as well to test her eye for measure,\nand this reminded me of the yard-stick. So I asked for fun: \"Do you\nremember that I showed you the yard-stick?\" \"Yes!\" was her prompt\nreply. In astonishment I continued: \"How many centimetres are there to\nthe metre?\" \"100!\" \"And how many decimetres to twenty centimetres?\"\n\"2.\" \"And how many decimetres in two and a half centimetres?\" \"25.\"\nNow, for the joke of the thing, I determined to test the accuracy of\nher eye, for I had not yet fetched the yard-stick, and she had, in\nfact, not seen it for many weeks. So I pointed to the outside edge of a\nsmall picture-frame that I--at a guess--took to be about twenty-two\ncentimetres in length. At the same time I must own that I have never\nexercised my judgment in this line to any very great extent. \"How long\nis this lower edge?\" I asked her, \"from _here_ to _here_?\" (pointing):\nher answer was, \"25.\" I then tested it by the stick; it was twenty-six!\nI pointed to a larger frame, putting the same question, she answered\n\"50.\" I measured, and found it to be 75. Again I showed her a smaller\npicture, and she rapped \"19.\" Then I showed her a piece of chocolate--\"7\"\nwas her reply--it was seven and a half. Later on, when she was in the\nmood she became able to guess within _half_ a centimetre at a distance\nof about thirty centimetres and at greater distances--up to one metre;\nI estimated the difference to vary from about one to ten centimetres.\nOf late I have not given her much practice of this kind, for from the\nbeginning she has not cared much for it. But I have made the experiment\nof seeing whether she can distinguish colours in the same way we do. To\nmake this test I daubed some of the most important colours on a sheet\nof paper, writing the name beneath each, and the next day I daubed the\nsame colours on another piece of paper--but in different sequence, and\nwithout adding their names. The ready response to my questions gave\nfurther proof as Lola's good memory as well as of her perfect ability\nto differentiate.\n\nI next questioned her on more practical subjects. I said: \"What is the\ncolour of the stove in this room?\" at the same time looking out of the\nwindow to make sure that she knew what a \"stove\" was. \"Green,\" was her\nanswer--and quite right too, for the stove is built of green porcelain\ntiles. I asked her a few more questions relating to flowers and to\narticles in daily use until I had no further doubt as to her being\ncompetent to tell one colour from the other. Coming generations may,\nperhaps, laugh at these numerous tests, instead of crediting animals\nwith this ability as a matter of course!\n\n\n\n\nHER PERFECT SENSE FOR SOUND\n\n\nIn my quest for further tests as to canine abilities, the idea occurred\nto me that it might be as well to arrive at a greater degree of\ncertainty with respect to sound, that is, inquiring into a dog's memory\nfor sound, and their powers of differentiating one tune from another.\nIn the case of my old dog, I had already observed many things such as\ninclined those to whom I had related my experiences, to be of opinion\nthat these had to do with the dog's ear. For instance, if I had been\naway, and returned (either driving or on foot), conversing in low tones\nwith another person, this dog would _scream_ for joy. His voice on such\noccasions was of quite a special quality, and everybody about the\ncourt-yard knew that I must have already passed the tree known as the\n\"Abend Eiche,\" which stands some hundred metres distant, and the dog\nwas always at that time confined, though in the open. Our conversations\non such occasions were always quiet ones, and yet the dog recognized my\nvoice at a distance of a hundred metres. If I happened to return alone\nand on foot, after an absence of about two days, his cries would start\nwhen I had reached _half that distance_--therefore, at fifty\nmetres--and Lola would then also hear my step. And here is another\nexample--one about which I was at first doubtful, not knowing to which\nsense it should be attributed. I always knew from Lola when I might\nexpect a certain friend of mine--a friend to whom, by the way, she was\nreally more attached than to me! I used to know by the heavy raps of\nher tail against the floor. The room in which we would be at such times\nwas on the second floor and lay towards the front of the house. But\nwhen those anticipatory raps began my friend was still on her way,\ncoming by a path which lay in the rear of the house, and, moreover, she\nalways came alone. When the dog was present she could never take me by\nsurprise.\n\nMy next ventures were of a musical nature, as I thought it might be\neasiest to achieve something in this direction. Lola knew the letters\nthat are associated with the different tones (_c_, _d_, _e_, _f_, _g_,\n_a_, _h_[15], _e_), having learnt these in her alphabet, so I only had\nto strike the keys (and I confined myself to the _white_ ones, as\ninvolving fewer difficulties), telling her their names. I began by\nsaying: \"Lola, you are going to learn something quite new and very\nbeautiful; you must listen to these sounds and tell me the names of\neach.\" Then I played the notes over several times from c to c, saying\nclearly and slowly: \"c, d, e, f, g, a, h.\" Then I paused and played\nthem over again--both the ascending and descending scale.\n\n      [15] _h_ is the term used in Germany for the note we call _b_.\n\nThen I struck \"c,\" saying, \"What note is that?\" She answered \"c.\" I\nstruck \"e,\" but she rapped \"no.\" I therefore played from c to e,\naccentuating e in particular. \"Do you know now?\" I asked, and she\nreplied, \"yes: e.\" I struck \"a,\" and the answer came at once, \"a.\" This\nseemed enough for one day, for I wished to keep her interest fresh. So\nwe then went over some arithmetic. The next day I played only _once_\nfrom c to c, asking the names of the notes out of their order, and Lola\nwas right in all her replies with the exception of \"h,\" and this she\nsoon identified after a comparison with the other notes. I tried\nwhether she could recognize the number of notes in a chord. First I\nstruck two, asking her the number; she replied \"2.\" I then struck\nfour--and she replied \"4\" without any hesitation. Then I struck five\ntogether, _c_ being associated with them twice. At this Lola rapped\n\"4,\" so I said: \"You are to tell me _every_ note I strike,\" at the same\ntime putting down the chord again, after which she replied \"5.\" This\nhad been an experiment for which I had made few preparations and I\nmarvelled at such obvious evidences of musical comprehension. But I\nfelt that I should nevertheless test her more closely still, and so I\ntold my experiences to a friend, a woman composer of great professional\ndistinction. This lady was both interested and surprised, and seating\nherself at the piano, she struck some notes. I placed myself so as not\nto see the keyboard and tried to guess their pitch, yet I have no \"ear\"\nin this way. I had in 1915 attended a course of Delcroze lessons (given\nat Stuttgart by Fraeulein Steiner) and had tried to acquire the faculty\nto distinguish the basic tone of any chord given at random--for this\ncan be acquired if one is to some extent musical, yet could I but\nseldom succeed. I would hover in doubt between c and d, and so on,\nwithout sensing any connexion with the other tones. Here, too, with one\nsingle note being struck I was unequal to the test, but Lola's replies\nwere excellent, yet was it again the novelty that gave zest to the\naffair, for later on her answers were good only when she was inclined\nto take trouble. But in the beginning she had been most obviously\ndelighted with the whole matter and leapt up at me in her joy and\nexcitement whenever I said: \"Lola, listen to sounds!\" I have interested\nand amused many friends with this little exhibition, for it came as a\nsurprise to many, especially as the sense of \"pitch\" is a comparatively\nrare one in most people.\n\n\n\n\nSCENT\n\n\nThe keenness of a dog's nose is, of course, proverbial, and I have only\nput a few tests to Lola in this particular, yet, such as they are\n(proving perhaps no more than is already known) I will here set down. I\nput the first of these tests to her on the 17 April, 1916. I showed her\na book belonging to my father and said:\n\n\"Whose book is this?\" She answered--\"Father!\" Then I showed her a glove\nand she told me it was mine. On 20 April, I showed her another glove\nbelonging to a lady who was commonly known among us as \"Mama\" and Lola\ninstantly replied with--\"Mama!\" This was followed by an important test\nin the afternoon of the same day. Four ladies, who were strangers to\nher had come to my father's place at Hohenheim, and in helping them\ntake off their wraps I did not particularly notice where the different\narticles of clothing were laid. Lola was in the room at the time, I\nintroduced the ladies to her singly and by name and later on sent her\nto fetch one of the hats. She fetched it and then sat expectantly\nbefore me. \"To whom does this hat belong?\" I asked. The answer was:\n\"Sibol.\" I then asked Fraeulein Sibold who was present if it really was\nher hat and she said--\"yes.\" Lola had remembered the name quite well\nbut had left out the final \"d\"--an omission due to the fact that I am\nin the habit of \"swallowing\" that letter when saying the name. On 29\nDecember, 1916, I gave Lola a biscuit and she seemed more than usually\ndelighted with its smell--as if there was something familiar about it.\n\"Why ever are you so pleased?\" I asked, to which she replied--\"Mama!\"\nAnd it had actually been sent by the aforementioned lady familiarly\nknown as \"Mama.\" I then showed her another biscuit, saying \"Is this too\nfrom Mama?\" but she answered \"no!\" \"Do you dogs always know by smell?\"\nI said--and she rapped \"yes!\" On this same day another test failed\nowing to the impossibility of ascertaining the true name of the article\nin question.\n\nI had a new jacket trimmed with fur--a variety unknown to me, it was\ngrey and slightly woolly. Lola could simply not tear herself away from\nit--the smell was so fascinating. I said to her: \"Tell me what is\ndelighting you so to-day?\" She replied--\"_mederesf_.\" Unable to make\nany sense of the letters I set them down in writing before her and\nasked her if any of them were wrong; to this she replied: \"yes:\"\n\"Which?\" asked I--she said: \"2.\" (_the second_) \"What should it be?\" I\nqueried; she rapped \"n.\" \"How many of these letters belong to the first\nword?\" I continued. \"2.\" \"And to the second?\" She gave a wavering\nsix--(though it may have been _five_). So the words purported to be \"ne\nderesf.\" I could make nothing of it and asked her again--\"What _is_\nderesf?\" to which she gave the explanation: \"ein tir.\" (tier = animal)\n\"_An animal_? but I don't know the name! have you heard of it?\" \"Yes!\"\n\"Have we seen this animal?\" \"Yes!\" \"Where did we see it?\" \"Maulburg.\"[16]\n\"In the house?\" \"No.\" \"In the woods?\" \"Yes!\" \"Spell the name again!\" \"d\nr e s f.\" \"And what is n e?\" \"dran\" (a contraction of daran = on it).\n\"On the jacket?\" \"Yes!\" \"Then you want to say that 'dresf' is on the\njacket?\" \"Yes....\" And Lola looked at me with the most imploring eyes\nas though I _ought to see that she was right_--as though _I ought to\nknow it_.\n\n      [16] Maulburg, near Schopfheim, in Baden, where Lola had visited\n      relations of mine.\n\n\"Are you _sure_ of the name?\" I persisted--and she replied: \"mittel.\"[17]\nHere we ended--and unfortunately I have not been able to ascertain so\nfar what this particular variety of fur is!\n\n      [17] Mittel = unbestimmt (uncertain; from Mitte = middle.)\n\nThere have been more recent tests of this nature, about which I do not\nas yet feel in a position to give a definite opinion. They may possibly\ncome into line with the theories held by Professor Gustav Jaegar, M.D.,\nof Stuttgart and, if so, would place the subject in a new perspective.\nI will now only add what has so far come to my notice accidentally:\n\nOn 4 October, 1916, I said: \"Lola, do you like to smell people?\" \"Yes!\"\n\"All people?\" \"No!\" \"How do I smell to-day?\" \"Tired.\" \"Lola,\" I said,\n\"do I sometimes smell horrid?\" \"Arger Eifersucht!\" ( = great, or strong\njealousy) \"So you smell what I feel and when it changes?\" \"Yes.\" \"With\nevery one?\" \"Yes.\" \"With horses too?\" \"No.\" \"With dogs?\" \"Yes! yes!!\"\n\nOn 5 October I asked: \"Lola, do I smell the same?\" \"No!\" \"How do I\nsmell?\" \"Angst\" ( = fear, or anxiety). She evidently meant that I was\nuneasy on account of the amount of work.\n\n\"Lola,\" I continued, \"how does Betty smell?\" \"Nach Angst\" ( = of\nanxiety) \"And anything more?\" \"Auch mued\" ( = also tired). [N.B. Betty\nhad held out the palms of her hands to the dog.] \"And anything more?\"\n\"Ja--traurig\" ( = yes--sad.) And I found later that this had been the\ntrue state of Betty's feelings at the time.\n\nLola was bright and fresh and this encouraged me to continue:\n\n\"What does Magda smell like?\" \"Afe.\" \"Is that right?\" \"No--a f.\" \"And\nwhat more?\" \"g e r e g t\" \"afgeregt? Isn't one letter wrong?\" \"Yes.\"\n\"Which?\" \"1\" \"Then what should it be?\" \"Au.\" \"Then you mean aufgeregt?\"\n(excited) \"Yes!\"\n\n6 October. \"Lola, do I smell different to-day?\" \"Yes--strong\" \"Yes! go\non?\" \"O w e.\" \"We?\" (weh = pain) \"Like pain?\" \"No.\" \"You meant like the\nexclamation--'O weh'?\" \"Yes!\" \"But what do I smell of?\" \"Of surogat\"\n(!) The use of this word by Lola seemed to be abnormal and mysterious,\nso I said \"I am sure you have never heard that word from me!\" and she\nreplied \"No!\" \"Tell me the name of the surogat?\" \"1\"--(which stands for\n\"I will not tell!\") \"Tell me! for you know the word for it!\" I\ninsisted. \"Yes!\" \"_Please tell me_?\" \"1\"--\"I will not be angry,\" I\npleaded, \"I will give you a biscuit.\" But Lola returned again a\nreluctant \"1.\" \"What is this 1 to mean, Lola--is it yes or no?\" \"4\" ( =\nmittel). She would not look at me and while seemingly desirous of\n\"insinuating\" something, was yet not quite ready to make a frank\nacknowledgment of the implication. \"Lola, tell me!\" I exclaimed, and\nshe rapped \"Luigen.\" \"_Luegen_?\" (lying) \"Ja--nein.\" \"Lola! I won't\nbe angry; do I smell of lies?\" \"Yes.\" \"Here at home?\" \"Minchen.\"\n(Muenchen = Munich.) And then it suddenly dawned on me; an hour earlier\nI had told the dog that I was going to Munich and that perhaps she\nmight go with me. Yet at the same time I was by no means so sure that\nthis could be managed, and thought therefore of taking her to\nStuttgart. People may smile when they read these things--indeed I have\noften smiled myself, but I cannot help it if Lola chooses to give such\nanswers! Probably the future may bring me further enlightenment! There\nwere many more occasions on which I was able to test Lola's quick nose\nin taking up the scent of human beings as well as of game and also the\nsmell attaching to different articles. I need not particularize these,\nfor anyone possessing a dog with a keen nose may know this as well as I\ndo--or, even better.\n\n\n\n\nSENSITIVENESS OF THE SKIN\n\n\nThe time at my disposal has unfortunately not been sufficient to enable\nme to engage on any very careful tests as to the sensitiveness of\nLola's skin. Yet I have made certain preliminary notes as to what I\nhope to do in this connexion, and have also begun with a few tentative\nattempts. I first tried her sensibility to various degrees of warmth by\nteaching her the use of the thermometer. I made a drawing of a\nthermometer--according to its actual size--and added principal numbers\nand figures and also\n\n    at 100 deg., water becomes air = hot.\n    at 0 deg., water becomes hard = cold.\n\nand beneath this I wrote:\n\n    from 1-100 upwards, it becomes always hotter,\n    from 0-40 downwards, it becomes always colder,\n\nand I concluded with a few more verbal elucidations, and then fetched\nan actual thermometer on which I made her read me the temperature of\nthe room. The next day I repeated this lesson and she read the\nthermometer again. After this I tested her as to whether she could give\nthe temperature by the \"feel,\" as it were, or whether the impression of\nthe temperature was associated more immediately with a sense of\ncomfort. She has so far always given the right temperature when asked,\nthough I should add that I have only put the question to her about\ntwenty times--and then when she has been in good health, so that I feel\nthat the matter has not yet been sufficiently put to the proof, and I\ncannot, therefore, make any very definite statements with regard to\nthis particular faculty. But I must add, that to two questions put to\nher on different days, she answered that she \"liked her food best at 6 deg.\nof warmth!\" Now this chimes with the advice given in many a book on the\ncare of dogs; \"do not give them their food too hot\"--and Lola's remark\nreminded me of this, though I might consider that \"degree of heat\"\npractically _cool_ ... yet it appeared to be what she desired.\nNevertheless, this preference turned out shortly to have been erroneous\nand, as the result of a practical trial, Lola changed her mind and\nvoted for anything \"between 12 deg.--16 deg.!\" Here is one more test I put with\nregard to her susceptibility to touch: I got someone else to trace\nfigures with their fingers on the dog's back, placing myself so that I\ncould not see what was being described; then I put the questions, and\neach time her replies tallied almost invariably. One put to her in this\nmanner was: \"2 + 3?\"; and \"5\" was given at once. While \"7 + 4?\"\nelicited a prompt \"11.\" Then a number was described and I said: \"Twice\nthis number makes?\"; to which she replied \"8,\" four having been traced\non her back. We only tried this new test for a few days so that I can\ngive no more exact details about it--excepting this, that on that\nparticular day, she would only understand the figures _if inscribed in\nthis manner on her back_! It evidently amused her immensely, and we\ncould see that she seemed to \"transfer her attention,\" as it were,\nelsewhere. But though this test had been so successful with numerals,\nit failed entirely with letters. This was incidentally an attempt on\nquite a small scale at carrying out the tests which had been\nsuccessfully so put to the blind horse Bertho, by Karl Krall.\n\nThese experiments as to her susceptibility to touch, or pressure, led\nto one slightly different, and which cannot as yet be said to have gone\nbeyond its initial stages. I took a set of weights of 5, 10, 20, 30,\n100, 200, 400, and 500 grammes, and also others of 1 and 2 kilo, and\ntold Lola she must learn to know how heavy a thing could be. Then I\nplaced the weights separately between her two shoulder-blades, naming\nthem beforehand somewhat as follows--and having first written out a\nchart for her which set forth in a plain and easy form what I was going\nto say:\n\n     125 grammes = 1/4 lb.\n     250 grammes = 1/2 lb.\n     500 grammes = 1 lb.\n    1000 grammes = 1 kilogramme\n     100 lb.     = 1 zentner\n\nI then explained this carefully and questioned her at once:\n\n\"How many pounds are 375 grammes?\" Answer: \"3/4.\"[18] \"How much are\n1,000 grammes?\" Answer: \"2.\" I had intentionally refrained from putting\nquestions as to figures that were on her chart which I had left lying\nbefore her; and after she had given her replies in accordance with the\npressure she had felt between her shoulders, I tested her ability at\nguessing where greater differences of weight were in question. On two\noccasions she gave the right answers, namely \"1 pound\" and \"2 pounds,\"\nI having put the question so as to obviate superfluous spelling. I then\nshowed her the weights, placing them in a row before her, naming them\nagain and saying: \"Which is the heaviest?\" She answered \"4.\" As a\nmatter of fact, the heaviest of these weights, the two-pound one, was\nactually standing fourth. I continued: \"And now?\" (I had for this\nquestion transposed the weights--unseen by Lola.) Answer: \"1.\" Which\nwas quite right! Then--\"Where is the 100 grammes?\" \"3.\" \"Where is 50\ngrammes?\" \"2,\" and \"Where is one pound?\" \"5.\" Her answers, as will be\nseen, were perfect; she had learnt to understand what was expected of\nher in this test with great rapidity.\n\n      [18] Fractions will be touched on in a later chapter on \"Advanced\n      Arithmetic.\"\n\nIndeed, more elaborate tests might have been undertaken but, unfortunately,\nI had little leisure at the time, and was without the assistance of any\neducated person who might have helped me in the work. As, however, the\n\"spade-work\" in this particular field of experiment seems now to have\nbeen accomplished, many additional and interesting details might\nresult--given the right opportunity.\n\nIt may, perhaps, be a matter of surprise, that I should have undertaken\nthese three separate tests, and left them in their initial stages,\ninstead of working persistently at one in particular, and thus, maybe,\nputting the time to better use. The reason was the old and troublesome\none which was always cropping up and causing me no little worry:\n_Lola's interest must not be allowed to flag_. In the course of a\nfortnight or three weeks, for instance, I have not dared to embark on\nmore than _one_ test, not even continuing that one for as many as five\nconsecutive days. This is why the three tests, above narrated, followed\nclose one upon the other, while I took care to turn Lola's attention\nfrom them in between, making her go over all sorts of sums and spelling\nexercises. Should I have persisted in fixing her attention I should\nonly have defeated my true object, and made her stale for future\nundertakings. In fact, I only engaged in these three, by way of giving\na greater sense of _completeness_ to the idea, and also in order to\nfire the ambition of others embarking upon work of a similar nature.\n\n\n\n\nFORECASTING THE WEATHER\n\n\nOn 2 May, 1916, at a season, therefore, when farmers are generally\nsomewhat exercised as to the coming hay-harvest, and may well wish they\nhad some contrivance--or knew of some method whereby they could\nascertain, at all events, a few days in advance what the weather is\ngoing to be, a thought flashed into my mind. At first it raised a\nsmile, it seemed so ridiculous and impracticable, yet there could be no\nharm in trying. I knew that most animals, such as birds, game, etc.,\nsensed the approach of rain at least several hours before it began to\nfall. But the subject is one that has not yet come sufficiently under\nnotice, so that we do not know whether they may not sense the\natmospheric changes over an even longer period. We humans are not in a\nposition to discover how animals come by their knowledge, we can only\nconclude that Nature has equipped them with more delicate \"chords,\" so\nto speak, and that upon these highly strung chords she can sound a\nwarning of her impending changes, since these, our humbler brethren,\nstand in more imminent need thereof. It is common knowledge that\nanimals sense earthquakes long in advance of the actual shock, and this\ncan only be accounted for in some such way. At the time of the\nearthquake in 1912, Rolf, at Mannheim, crept into a corner _several\nhours_ before it took place, and on being questioned, replied: \"Lol\nhat angst, weiss nid vor was.\" (Lol is frightened; doesn't know at\nwhat.) It was quite useless trying to get further particulars as to his\nfears, for an earthquake was an entirely new experience to him; at a\nrepetition of the event his remarks would, doubtless, be of greater\ninterest and importance. Now as the weather is a matter that concerns\nanimals, and with which they are also familiar, I determined to see how\nfar I could get with Lola on this subject. So I taught her as follows:\n\n    For sun = s.\n    For rain = r.\n    For some rain = b (ein Bischen = a little).\n\nand to test her in this matter, I questioned her as to the last few\ndays--here she answered correctly. Then I began:\n\n\"What about to-day?\" Lola replied: \"b\" ( = it is raining a little). I\nnow felt sufficiently encouraged to ask her concerning the days ahead,\nand received the following answers:\n\n    For 3 May = s (sun).\n    For 4 May = s (sun).\n    For 5 May = b (some rain).\n    For 6 May = nein (no = don't know).\n\nI told these forecastings of Lola's to several friends who, like\nmyself, were watching the weather with anxiety. Rightly enough! the sun\nshone on 3 May; on that very day therefore I continued putting my\nquestions--and Lola again prophesied:\n\n    For 6 May = r (rain).\n    For 7 May = b (a little rain).\n\nOn the next day, 4 May, the sun shone once more--as she had said it\nwould, and in the afternoon I asked her: \"How do you come to know the\nweather, Lola? How do you do it?\" \"Raten\" (guessing). In astonishment I\nsaid: \"From whom have you got that word?\" \"Dir\" (from you) \"Have you\nheard me say it?\" \"Yes!\" On the 5th there were a few drops of rain, and\non the 6th two hours' heavy downfall, but on the 7th it was dry and\nsunny, so that it may be that I had taxed her powers of anticipation\nbeyond their limit, for I had asked her far in advance of the 3rd. From\ntime to time she then continued to give me \"advance information\" as to\nthe kind of weather to expect, two days or, at most, three days were\nthe test put, and for some time I was able to fully rely on her\nforecasts, and would arrange my work accordingly, being careful not to\ncut or mow when Lola had prophesied _rain_, etc.\n\nOne morning, the sort of day when one cannot be sure of what it means\nto do, rain or clear, I again sought my dog's advice! It was very\nimportant to me that the hay should be carried, while the weather was\ndry, but I should have preferred having it loaded up towards evening,\nas the carts were wanted for other work--if only I knew what to expect!\nLola decided for \"r\" (rain) in the afternoon, so I had the hay carried\nat eleven--_at three the rain began_, but my loads were saved! A long\nperiod of wet weather followed; after this had continued for a\nfortnight--a beautiful morning broke, fine and clear, so that every one\nabout the farm said--\"at last it's going to be fine again!\" I enquired\nof Lola--\"Will there be sun to-day?\" \"No!\" she said: \"Then tell me what\nthe weather will be to-day?\" I urged. \"r.\" I was loth to believe her,\nyet, by eleven, the rain had begun again. Now all this seemed very\nnice, and I was quite delighted, for the importance of such accuracy in\nagricultural work was incalculable, but I soon found that I was\n\"reckoning without my host!\" After she had--as I have shown--gone on\nrapping out useful and correct replies for some time, she got sick of\nit, began to rap out all sorts of nonsense; indeed, I knew at once from\nher listless and unfriendly manner that her interest was falling off,\nand that the replies she was giving were false. It seemed to me,\nindeed, that she was doing this obstinately and on purpose, so as to\nput me off asking any more questions! And--if so--she certainly gained\nher point. The lesson of this, is that one has to bear in mind that one\nis not dealing with a _machine_, but with a living being--and with one\nthat is in many respects exceedingly \"unreasonable\" and particularly\n\"self-willed.\"\n\nI had been devoting myself to this work for some months, and had lost\nsome of my earlier interest, but I started again three days ago so as\nto have another test to set down here. Lola proved to be up to the mark\nagain, seemed interested, and I did my best to encourage her by saying:\n\"You _will_ be pleased when you know _this_!\" ... \"This _is_ nice!\" ...\n\"See how much more a dog knows than many a man!\" and so on. And as a\nresult she announced on 5 January, 1917.\n\n    For 6 January = b (a little rain).\n    For 7 January = r (rain).\n    For 8 January = r (rain).\n\nOn 6 January, there was half a degree of cold, and snow fell later in\nthe day. This answer was near enough, for she had not been taught\n\"snow,\" yet the equivalent might doubtless be found in a little \"rain,\"\ni.e. wet. On 7 January, we had a heavy fall of snow, and another on 8\nJanuary. So that this test succeeded, if we discount the snow instead\nof rain, a change occasioned by the colder atmosphere.\n\n\n\n\nADVANCED ARITHMETIC\n\n\nAs the reader will now know, Lola was already acquainted with the\nsimpler modes of arithmetic--such as addition, subtraction,\nmultiplication and division; and we continued practising these forms\nfor some time, even though my mind was already busy planning other and\nmore ambitious tests. Arithmetic had of late only been taken as a\ncorollary to her other studies, but the time seemed to have come when\nfurther advance in this too, might be deemed desirable. Her ability to\n\"reckon\" had already proved itself of practical use in facilitating her\nother accomplishments, and I determined now to try and put it to a\nstill more objective test, first of all in such simple forms as: \"How\nmany people are there here?\" Answer: \"7.\" \"How many of them are women?\"\nAnswer: \"6.\" \"How many dogs are there in this room?\" Answer: \"1.\" \"And\nwho is that?\" \"Ich\" (I). A little later I said: \"Listen to me, Lola!\nThere are thirty cows in the stalls; ten of those cows go to graze, and\ntwo cows have been killed, how many cows remain in the stalls?\" Answer:\n\"18.\" Then I said: \"Six oxen are in the stalls--how many legs have six\noxen?\" Answer: \"24.\" and so we continued, the right reply being\ngenerally given after this exercise had been repeated a few times.\n\nIn May, 1916, Lola learnt the big multiplication-table, doing so easily\nand quickly. She was at first slightly inaccurate in the higher\nnumbers, for rapping out the \"hundreds\" with the right paw and the\n\"tens\" with the left--and then again the \"ones\" with the right gave her\nsome trouble in the beginning. Yet such questions as: 3 + 14, 2 + 17, 4\n+ 20, were given without hesitation, since these did not come within\nthe region of the hundreds. But in time she got used to the hundreds\ntoo--and even to thousands, and to these latter she applied her left\npaw, rapping the date 1916 thus: left paw 1; right paw 9; left paw 1;\nright paw 6.\n\nTowards the end of May I thought I would teach her fractions, and she\napparently understood what I meant, but for a beginning I could only\nput questions, such as: \"How many _wholes_ are there in 20/4, 12/4, or\n11/2\" etc. Indeed, I was at first at a loss as to what form of\nexpression I should use here--so as not to come into collision with\nthose already resorted to, thus giving rise to confusion. At first I\nthought it might be more convenient to let her rap out the denominator\nwith her right paw and the numerator with her left--but I soon came to\nsee that even with 3/16, this method could no longer be maintained. At\nlength I let her simply rap out the numerator--then I would ask for the\ndenominator, and let her rap this, so that in the case of 3/16 she\nrapped the 3 first with her right paw; then gave the denominator, i.e.\n1 rap with her left paw and 6 again with her right. This mode or\nprocedure came quite naturally to her, and so it was retained. The\nquestions were practised in the following manner:--\"How do you rap 3/8,\n12/6?\" etc., and I followed this up with easy exercises such as: \"How\nmuch is 2/8 + 1/4?\" the simplified answer being \"1/2.\" I had, as may be\nimagined, already given her repeated and detailed explanations on the\nsubject before she was capable of giving such answers as \"1/2,\" to the\nabove question. Simplifying was also practised separately thus:\n\"Simplify 20/16!\" Answer: \"1-1/4.\" this being given with \"1 r\" (pause)\n\"1 r\" (another pause); \"and the denominator?\" \"4 r.\" To anyone\nfollowing her actions, the meaning would appear quite distinct. I now\ndetermined that she should add together numbers having different\ndenominators--as, for example: 1/4 + 1/3, and here I had myself to\ncogitate as to how this ought to be done, for at school, my enthusiasm\nfor arithmetic had never been great and much of what I had then learnt\nhas been forgotten. So I talked the question over with a friend--in\nLola's presence and out loud--and finally arrived at the solution. As\nshe had been listening most of the time while we sought, found, and\ndiscussed the solution, I soon ventured to put a few tests to her, and\nthe answers proved that she had actually been listening while our\nconversation was going on, and that what we had talked about had\nlingered in her memory. By the way, it is reported of Jean Paul\nRichter, that when on some occasion a friend came to him desirous of\ntalking over some matter, the nature of which none other was to know,\nJean Paul said to his poodle, who was under the table: \"Go outside, we\nwant to be alone!\" The dog vacated, and the poet remarked: \"Now, sir,\nyou can talk, for no one will hear us!\"\n\nLola solved the following problems:\n\n    \"1/5 + 1/3 = ?\"  A. \"8/15.\"    \"1/7 + 5/8 = ?\"  A. \"43/56.\"\n\n    \"1/2 + 1/3 = ?\"  A. \"5/6.\"     \"1/4 + 2/5 = ?\"  A. \"13/20.\"\n\nAs the problems always took me longer than they did her I never checked\nthem at the time, but went over them later, after she had given all her\nanswers. I did this moreover, so that she should have no opportunity of\ntapping my thoughts and thus rely on me; indeed, I really _forced_ her\nto do her own thinking. For even if I did begin to calculate I did it\nso slowly, that she was rapping out her reply long before I was done. I\nsay all this to my own shame, for Lola must have her due--and I never\nhad a head for arithmetic myself!\n\nWhen she knew how to calculate time, I put the following question to\nher: \"How many minutes are there in an hour and a half--less thirty\nminutes?\" Answer: \"60.\" \"How many hours are there in 240 minutes?\"\nAnswer: \"4.\" By this time Lola had also learnt the value of money.\nAbout the end of April, 1916, she could distinguish between such coins\nas 5 Pfennige, 10 Pfennige, 50 Pfennige; 1 Mark, 2 Mark, and 5 Mark,\nand could compute the value of the Mark in Pfennige. When showing my\nfriends what she could do in the way of arithmetic, her money sums were\na special feature and delighted everybody. Here is an example, the date\nbeing 31 May: I put the question: \"12 Mark less 4 Mark 10 Pfennige?\"\nadding--\"Tell me the Mark!\" Answer: \"7.\" \"And the Pfennige?\" \"90\" (i.e.\n7 Mark 90 Pfennige.) Question: \"What coins do you know?\" Answer: \"5,\n10, 50; 1, 2.\" \"And what are they all?\" \"Fenig.\" (i.e. Lola's mode of\nspelling Pfennig.) \"Lola, how much of a Mark are 50 Pfennige? The\nanswer has to do with fractions.\" Answer: \"1/2.\" \"How much are 225\nPfennige?\" \"2-1/4.\" \"And 20 Pfennige?\" \"1/5.\" \"And 60?\" \"3/5.\" \"And\n3/20 Mark, how many Pfennige?\" \"20.\" _\"No!_ \"8/20 Mark?\" Answer: \"15.\"\nTowards the close of 1916 I taught her to raise numbers to various\npowers. At this she was slow in the beginning, but ultimately mastered\nit fairly well. She could soon answer such questions as--\"3^3 = ?\" with\n\"27.\" And--\"4^2 = ?\" with \"16,\" doing so, moreover, with ease; but up\nto now I have not been able to take her any further in the matter of\nextracting roots; in the first place I have had little time to give to\nit, and secondly, I am by no means on very sure ground there myself! I\nmight, of course, have rubbed up my own rusty arithmetic had my\ninterest in this particular accomplishment of Lola's been greater.\nBut--for my own part, I attach greater importance to the psychological\nside of this question, and would far rather probe and delve within the\ndepths of her dog-soul, exploring the extent of her other abilities,\nsince arithmetic has already some brilliant exponents in, for instance,\nKrall's horses.\n\n\n\n\nWORKING WITH OTHER PERSONS.\n\n\nAs may readily be imagined, it is by no means easy to induce an animal\nto work with any person it does not regard as its accepted teacher. On\nsuch occasions, it will behave like a small child, and be restless and\neven intractable. Often, too, while apparently willing, there may be\nsomething unfamiliar in the way in which a question is put (a matter\nfor which no one can be blamed!), this resulting in the impossibility\nof getting an answer. Sometimes, too, the hand proffered to receive the\nreplies is not held either straight or flat enough, or may not have the\nright slant that will enable the paw to rap without slipping off. Or,\nagain a hand will be held too high, and thus cause much inconvenience\nto the animal. Then too, questions are carelessly worded, and seem\nstrange to the method of thought to which its regular instructor has\naccustomed it, fresh explanations being then required to achieve any\nresults at all. And so it comes, that only those can work successfully\nwith animals who have already been frequently present at the teaching,\nand are then willing to try their luck, calmly and tranquilly--and\nquite alone with the animal, so as to carefully develop their own\naptitude, as well as gain the confidence of their charge. It is true\nthat in the case of the horses, others, besides Herr Krall, frequently\ndid work with them. Indeed, my father got excellent answers from them,\nalthough he had to do with them for only a short time. But the matter\nseems rather more difficult with dogs; for one thing, they do not stand\nin front of a board--independently, so to speak--as do the horses; nor\nare they, from the beginning of their career as habitually accustomed\nto a variety of persons about them, at least, not to the extent that\nhorses are. And yet they are sometimes quite ready to work with others,\nthis being the case with Lola when I took her to Stuttgart, on a visit\nto a lady she already knew--Fraeulein M. D., and who had put a few\nquestions to her when here at the farm, questions which she had\nanswered quite correctly. At Stuttgart there was a larger circle of\nlisteners, and Lola sat in their midst upon a table. Fraeulein M. D.\nstood beside me, and I asked her to put the question. I do not now\nremember what the question was, but I had extended my hand for the\nreply. Lola, however, turned to the speaker, and tapped the correct\nanswer on that lady's arm, giving the second--and equally good one on\nFraeulein M. D.'s proffered hand. Lola is also in the habit of answering\nmy people with either \"yes\" or \"no\" as the case may be, and on one\noccasion--when I was away from home, having gone to Munich for three\nweeks--she remained with Frau Kindermann at Hohenheim, and during that\ntime, gave replies to all kind of questions put to her by that lady, as\nthe following report will show:\n\n    \"REPORT OF FRAU PROFESSOR KINDERMANN IN HOHENHEIM\n\n    \"On my asking Lola: 'Where is your mistress?' she\n    answered--'minchen!' (Muenchen). When I showed her the portrait of\n    my son Karl and asked--'Of whom is this a picture?' Lola at once\n    replied 'Karli.' On 28 October, I received a hamper of vegetables\n    from my mother--known to Lola as 'Mama,' to whom she had been on a\n    visit at Easter. Lola sniffed all the hamper over, then jumped\n    about and wagged her tail joyfully--so I inquired: 'Do you know who\n    the hamper is from?' 'Yes!' 'Then tell me!' 'Mama!' She did a few\n    sums with me every day; told the time; the days of the week, and\n    the temperature. Several acquaintances bore witness to the good\n    work she did--and Lola told them her age--after she had been given\n    the year of her birth. If I happened to be absent minded, Lola knew\n    at once how to deceive me, for she seemed then, instinctively aware\n    that I was not a match for her.\"\n\n                     *      *      *      *      *\n\nLola also solved many little sums set her by my friend, Fraeulein M. D.\n(at the time that lady had been staying with me on the farm to gain\nfirst-hand experience in the work), and on one occasion when Fraeulein\nM. D. said, \"Where is your mistress?\" Lola spelt out that I was in the\n\"segenhaus,\" which was quite true, I having told her shortly before\nthat I was going there. To the great amusement of the maids, Lola\nsometimes elected to work in the kitchen, with the little\nseven-year-old son of the housekeeper, and it is reported that her\nanswers were frequently right. I feel sure, in fact, that Lola would\nwork with anyone who was adapted to work with her, and that she would\ngive as good an account of herself, with them, as she does with me.\n\n\n\n\nTHE QUESTION OF POSSIBLE INFLUENCE\n\n\nEighteenth May, 1916. Lola, who since the middle of April has been\naccustomed to giving her own independent, and often lengthy, answers,\nwas now rapping very well. Her replies were to the point, decidedly\napt, and often quite unexpected. Moreover she usually stuck obstinately\nto her own way--should I happen to think that something was incorrect,\nuntil--on giving in--I sometimes had to acknowledge that she had been\nright after all. Now, on the 18 May I said to her: \"Lola, you must\nwrite to my father and thank him for the biscuits, he will then send\nyou some more. This is the way to write a letter, one begins--'dear\nFather,' or just 'dear,' and then one tells what one is thinking about,\nyou must, therefore, thank him--and when the letter is finished--you\nmust put 'love from Lola'.\" Now then--begin. Lola started rapping out\nwithout further delay, and continued rapidly and \"fluently\"--so to\nspeak--her letter running as follows: \"lib, nach uns kom, ich una ...\"\n(here I interrupted her, believing her about to say \"ich und Henny\")\nand asked \"is this right?\" She said it was: \"but, Lola,\" I urged, \"be\nsure you are careful! ought this not to be a 'd'?\" \"No!\" she said. I\nwas at a loss to make out where this \"a\" came in, but told her to go\non--and Lola rapped: \"... artig eben, oft we, kus ich!\" So the \"una\"\nhad been part of \"unartig\"! ( = \"dear, come to us, I have just been\nnaughty, often pains, kiss (you) I.\" Here she showed that she was quite\ncertain in her own mind, and that in spite of my suggestions as to the\nform her letter should take, she was yet bent on following her own\nideas, since there was no trace of \"thanks!\" Besides which, instead of\nconcluding with \"Lola,\" as I had proposed her doing, she elected to\nassert herself by putting _ich_ = \"I!\") \"Naughty\" referred, probably to\na _strafe_ she had had about a quarter of an hour earlier for chasing\nthe game, and the \"often pain\" to headache and to being tired. Anyway,\nthis letter seems a brilliant proof of \"independent thinking,\" and I\nshall be able to give several more equally fresh and original replies\nin a later chapter.[19]\n\n      [19] Chapter XVIII, \"Spontaneous Answers.\"\n\nUp to this time, it had only been in the matter of _replies_ that I had\nbeen able to obtain independent communications, but, on 27 May, there\nwas a new development to record: I had avoided asking her any questions\nfor several days, for I had noticed that she seemed extremely tired.\nBut by this day I thought she would probably be fit to do a reasonable\namount of work: I have always abstained from this if she showed signs\nof evident fatigue. So I now asked her: \"Lola! how is it you always\nknow when my friend is coming? you knew it before she entered the house\nthis morning!\" \"Gehoert,\" ( = heard) was the reply. \"Then, if you know\nhers--do you know the sounds made by every one?\" \"No.\" \"Only those whom\nyou know well?\" \"Yes.\" Then Lola began wagging her tail near to the\ndoor, so I asked: \"Who was outside?\" Lola gave a \"g,\" and then\ncorrected it with \"no.\" From her delight, I was inclined to think that\nit had been Frieda, a young girl who had been studying farming with me,\nand that this was the name Lola was about to rap out. So I discounted\nthe \"g\" and the \"no\" and said: \"It should be 'f'--shouldn't it?\" (note:\ng = 17, f = 16.) Whereupon Lola continued and rapped--_Frieda_. I then\nlooked out and saw to my astonishment that it was Guste, a new maid who\nhad been in the house about a week. I said to Lola at once: \"You were\nwrong, it was not Frieda, but the new maid--what is her name?\" Lola\nbegan again----\" ... \"and again added \"no ...\" \"Don't you know her\nname?\" I inquired--but Lola replied \"yes!\" I turned the matter over in\nmy mind, wondering how she had come to rap \"Frieda\" instead of \"Guste,\"\nand finally said to her: \"Why did you give me a wrong answer, saying\nFrieda when it was Guste?\" and Lola responded with, \"You think!\"\n\"What?\" said I, \"did you _feel_ what I was thinking?\" \"Yes.\" \"And do\nyou _always_ feel what I think?\" \"Yes.\"\n\nThis was something quite new, but I explained it to myself, and my view\nhas proved to be correct in all subsequent tests undertaken by me. It\nis this: _Dogs are susceptible to thought-transference--also, that\nthey are more particularly open to this when tired and when lazy.\nFurther--they are open to such thought-transference even when not\nactually aware of the question--as for instance, in the present case,\nwhere it was a matter of the new servant's name, for here Lola had been\nable to \"tap\" my thoughts with respect to what was familiar to\nher_--(i.e. the name of the other maid) _but_ (and this is the most\nimportant point)--_a dog cannot receive impressions in respect of\nmatters of which it has no knowledge_!\n\nFor example, here Lola could not spell \"Guste\" in spite of the fact\nthat I was expecting it quite as intently as I had looked for \"Frieda\"\nin the first instance; and what is more--I cannot get the dog to \"take\nup\" a new thought should she have already \"made up her mind\" about a\nmatter, as on the occasion when she had been \"naughty.\" It has\nconstantly happened that Lola has held out against me in the matter of\nsome figure in her sums and that--later on--I have found myself to have\nbeen at fault, this showing that the numerals \"pictured\" in my mind can\nhave made no impression on hers; yet, on the other hand, it has also\nhappened that she has accepted my inaccuracies--simply because she was\ntired, and did not want the trouble of \"thinking for herself.\" Indeed,\nI could see as much in her eyes--there would be a sense of inertia\nabout her, which indicated that she was only waiting to \"guess\" by\nmeans of _feeling_--a willing receptacle, as it were, ready to receive\nmy thoughts. I have often made the attempt at \"thinking\" _new_ things\ninto her head--but have found this quite impossible.\n\nShortly after what has here been related, Lola became a \"slacker\" in\nthe matter of thinking, and kept this up for days. As this pose made it\nimpossible for me to put a serious test, I had recourse for some time\nto questions only, and--moreover--to questions as to which I could not\nbe sure of the answer, without some trouble or calculation on my own\npart, for I felt that I might otherwise have really lost my patience\nwith her--unless I had kept on strenuously suggesting the answer--as,\nfor instance: \"the stove is green!\" Nor did I feel that I could have\nentirely relied on the inactivity of my subconsciousness, while thus\nintently thinking. So I kept to such questions as--\"What will be the\nday of the week on such and such a date?\" (Naming a date about three\nweeks ahead.) This precluded any possibility of thought-transference,\nfor I simply ignored reckoning out the days myself. By the way, it is\nastounding that dogs should be receptive to thought-transference,\nthough there are, of course, many proofs of a dog's acute and delicate\nsusceptibility in relation to the thoughts of human beings, as well as\na certain comprehension for a particular situation in which these may\nbe placed. Yet such comprehension can only evince its true force when\nanimals shall have learnt how to give expression to that of which they\nare aware. With reference to the incident which I have just cited, the\nthought that presented itself to me first, was that the entire process\nmight possibly be no more than a matter of \"suggestion.\" Yet, on\nprobing further into the question, as well as by drawing comparisons,\nthe conclusions arrived at only further confirmed what I have above\nstated. That this is so, will, I think, seem absolutely certain to\nanyone who reads through the whole of this book carefully--indeed, they\nwill arrive at that conclusion without my labouring the question.\n\nIt was only by degrees that Lola became amenable to thought-transference,\nand, in fact, this was only in accordance to the extent to which she\nbecame mistress of the human tongue. Now this trait might have\ndegenerated into a serious failing, but, owing to the measures to which\nI resorted so as to obviate any evil results, it has almost entirely\nceased. I now remain quite _passive_, while she is answering, trying to\nsuppress any \"thinking _with_ her,\" so that, when she tires, her own\nindividuality may not be disturbed.\n\n\n\n\nALTERATIONS AND MEMORY\n\n\nAs I have endeavoured to make clear--Lola was, especially during the\nfirst month of tuition, exceedingly attentive at her lessons. Indeed,\nher rapid progress can only be ascribed to this, and to her good\nmemory. Nor did she only evince this alertness at her studies, but\nnoticed everything that went on round about her, even to the following\nof our conversations, her keenness was surprising. It is probable that\nevery lively and intelligent dog follows what is being said in its\npresence, and notes our play of feature--this accounting for the\ndemonstrations of sympathy, and other symptoms of partisanship or of\naversion they so constantly show. In general, however, such intuitive\nresponse is due rather to the dog's memory, and can only be brought to\nthe surface and recognized where the \"Spelling Method\" has become a\nfamiliar mode of expression. Indeed, it may be said that its\nattentiveness begins then to extend over a far greater field of\ninterest.\n\nOn the 19 April, 1916, several ladies--as yet unknown to Lola--were in\nthe room with me. She was sitting near the window and dividing her\nattention between what was going on outside and in the room. After\nabout half an hour she did some sums and some spelling, acquiting\nherself very well. For fun she was then asked the name of one of my\nguests (N.B. the lady's name was really Fraeulein Herbster.) (Herbst =\nautumn, so we usually call her Spring) \"What's the name of this girl?\"\nI said: \"Fruehling\" ( = Spring) was her reply at once--so that she must\nmost obviously have been listening to us while we were talking.\n\nOn the 25 April of the same year, I went on a visit to Hohenheim,\ntaking Lola with me. While there I showed her a picture painted by\nFerdinand Leeke and said: \"That was done by 'Uncle' who came to stay\nwith us at the farm, at the time when Lola was allowed to go for her\nfirst drive in the carriage with the two horses.\" (This event having\nmade a great impression on her.) \"Do you remember 'Uncle's' name?\" I\nadded. \"Yes!\" \"What is it?\" \"leke!\" The visit had taken place quite\nthree weeks ago.\n\nOn the 20 May I took Lola to tea at S----. She did her work there\nexcellently--both in viva voce arithmetic, as well as in the written\ntests put to her, and also counted dots, etc. After this the\nconversation became general, and Lola was not noticed. But in the\ncourse of the afternoon I told my friends that I had been to\nHagenbeck's Circus a few days before, and that I had seen a monkey\ndressed as a man, and that it had eaten most daintily, cycled, and done\nother tricks. This had been a mere casual remark, and in about an\nhour's time I had returned home with Lola. But that same evening, when\nI was sitting reading, Lola came and rapped my hands--inquiring--\"wer\nafe?\" ( = who monkey?) I was at the moment so absent minded that I did\nnot grasp what she was after--but she repeated \"afe!\" Then it suddenly\nflashed into my mind--and I did my best to illustrate the performance\nto her entire satisfaction. I gave an earlier conclusive proof of her\nmemory when I mentioned her recollection of the yard-stick after the\nvery brief explanation I had given her on the subject two months\npreviously. Spontaneous remarks have been allotted a special chapter in\nthis book, and may assist in proving what has already been stated, but\nI should like here to add an example of how animals put a matter \"to\nthemselves,\" as it were, when the thing _heard_ has not been mentally\ndigested, so to speak--or may even be quite incomprehensible to them.\n\nOn 26 July, 1916, I said: \"Lola! now _you_ think of something to ask\n_me_!\" \"Yes!\" \"Well, what is it to be?\" \"Yes, o h o.\" \"What is the\nquestion? What am I to do with that word; the sentence is not complete,\nis it?\" \"What means?\" \"You want to know what _oho_ means?\" \"Yes, yes!\"\n\nIf we but consider the manner in which a dog will listen--with ears\nerect--to every word we say, the question Lola put to me will seem most\nnatural! It even \"comes naturally\" to her to use words which are \"above\nher head,\" so to speak, as for instance, when she said \"surogat\"--and\nin the case of Rolf, who referred to the \"Urseele!\" ( = the primeval\nsoul!) Words such as these are \"picked up\" by them much in the way that\nchildren use words they do not know the meaning of: there may be\nsomething in the sound that attracts them, but sometimes they make a\nguess at the meaning, and in the case of animals, the guess is often a\nvery good one. In Lola this \"Art of Guessing\" almost led to a sort of\nRomance!\n\nIn my Protocol of 14 December, I have the following entry: Yesterday I\nasked Lola to tell me why dogs prefer being with human beings rather\nthan with other dogs--and I asked her the same question again to-day.\nLola answered: \"eid\" ( = oath). \"What is that? you were to answer me\nto-day: say something properly!\" \"ich eid.\" \"Oh! I don't understand\nthis! tell me nicely!\" \"Eid fuer hunde.\" \"What is _oath_ to mean?\" \"Zu\nschweigen!\" ( = to be silent) \"_What_? have you promised that to each\nother?\" \"Yes.\" \"Who told you that?\" \"Frechi.\" (This was one of the dogs\non the farm.) \"Frechi? and what has that to do with you? Nonsense, had\nyou told me so yesterday I should have known now! Say 'we are happy'\notherwise I shall think you are telling me stories: now _why_?\" \"Wegen\niren augen und iren sorgen one ruhe\" ( = because of their eyes and\ntheir sorrows without ceasing). Lola was very tired when she had\nfinished, but it had all been rapped out clearly and carefully, without\na single correction. Later I said: \"Lola, do you like being with me?\"\n\"Yes.\" \"Why?\" \"ich gut ura?\" Now this was quite incomprehensible, so I\nsaid: \"What do dogs feel when they look at the eyes and see the sorrows\nof people?\" \"No.\" \"Yes, tell me?\" Then with hesitation: \"libe....\"\n(Liebe = love) and to this day I feel touched at these answers. How\noften in trouble and in sorrow have we not found relief in a dog's\nsympathy, and been glad to call it a friend in our sufferings? How\noften has not a dog's eye filled with understanding when its master has\nsat alone and lost in grief--coming, perhaps, and gently laying its\nhead upon his knees--fixing its faithful gaze on him until at length he\nmight be moved to smile, feeling that--after all--he was not alone?\nDogs! may this not be your true vocation? Indeed, this thought\npossessed me for a long time. This sensitive aspect had not been so\napparent to me until now ... I had been so keen on the objective tests\nand on all that they meant--and now I was almost ready to reproach\nmyself, for had I not centred my love and intelligence on science\nalone: and only in a secondary sense upon the dog?...\n\n16 December, 1916. On this date I returned to the subject, and said to\nLola: \"Why do dogs go to people when they see them in sorrow--what is\nit they then want?\" \"tresten\" (troesten = to console).\n\n\"Tell me, Lola, of all the people you know, who has the most sorrows?\"\n\"herni ...\" But she hesitated, and then turned the \"r\" into an \"n,\" so\nthat I saw she meant me (Henny)--and yet the spelling had been done\nwith some uncertainty, so I said: \"I thought you would have named\nsomeone else, whom all dogs love--do you know who I mean?\" \"Yes.\"\n\n\"Did you mean my friend?\" \"No.\" \"Who then?\" \"her zigler!\" (Herr Dr.\nZiegler) \"Then why did you tell a story just now? Did you think I\nshould be pleased to think you meant me?...\"\n\nLater in the afternoon Lola was in a state of great depression; \"What\nis the matter?\" I asked. \"er in or ist aus!\" I questioned her more\nclosely, so as to get at the meaning of this enigmatical remark: \"What\n'in ear'?\" (or being meant for Ohr = ear). She replied: \"eid zu sagen\"\n( = oath to tell--or to say) adding \"ich auch aus\" ... ( = I also done\nfor). She looked absolutely miserable, and dropped down in a limp heap\nbetween rapping out each word, as though bereft of all will-power. I\nwas beginning to feel quite distracted about her: \"Lola!\" I cried, \"Is\nthere no way of putting it right again? Oh, there must be!\" \"Yes.\"\n\"Then I will help you!\" but again she rapped: \"er ist aus!\" (Ehre ist\naus = honour is gone). She could only answer concerning something she\nhad in her head, and she did so restlessly--though quite distinctly.\nThe whole thing seemed quite incredible! \"Lola!\" I urged, \"how can it\nbe put right?\" \"e zu....\" and here Lola cowered down miserably, and\nremained so for the rest of the day.\n\n17 December. To-day Lola ran away, returning at length as depressed as\never and bleeding. After I had bathed the wounds on her neck and ears I\nwas glad to find that they were after all, no more than deep scratches.\n\"How did this happen?\" I asked. \"ich one er.\" \"_How did it happen_? did\nyou run against a tree?\" \"Dog.\" \"What dog?\" \"az....\" \"Tell me\nproperly!\" \"kuhno.\" (Kuhno was a fox-terrier in a building near by.)\n\"And were people present?\" \"Yes.\" \"Who?\" \"wilhelm.\" (And this, as I\nlater ascertained, was the case.)\n\n18 December: Lola looked as if she had been crying, so again I said:\n\"What is the matter, Lola?\" \"No.\" \"Lola! _do_ tell me?\" \"zu rechnen\" (\n= her mode of expression when making evasive remarks). \"No, Lola! tell\nme why you have been crying?\" \"zu sagen swer\" ( = schwer: difficult to\ntell). \"No! tell me and I will help you!\" I urged (I had incidentally\ndrawn her attention to the above mistake--the \"s\" instead of the\n\"sch\"). \"Why difficult?\" \"wegen er.\" After a pause I asked again: \"Why\nare you getting so thin, Lola?\" (for she had lost flesh considerably\nduring the last three days). \"ich so wenig er.\" \"Wenig essen?\" ( = you\nhave eaten little?) I suggested--\"no\"--\"Say the last word again.\" \"er!\"\nShe kept harping on the same word--Ehre = honour: there could be no\nfurther doubt about this, for the missing \"h\" was of no importance\nsince I had taught her to spell all words according to their sound\nonly--as there would have been no object in teaching her _our_\northography, embodying, as it does, so much that is cumbersome and\nsuperfluous.\n\n21 December: Lola was still in the same broken condition: she had been\noff after the game since about mid-day on the 20th, and had only\nreturned home in the evening. I addressed her with evident displeasure\nin my voice, saying: \"Have you any excuse to make for such behaviour?\"\n\"Yes.\" \"Then what is it?\" \"ich one er.\" ( = I am without honour). \"But,\nLola! you are only making things worse--if you are naughty and go off\nlike this after the game!\" \"zu schwer zu leben!\" ( = too difficult to\nlive!). \"Lola! how can honour be made good again?\" \"wen ich sterbe!\" (\n= if I die!) ... and here the \"romance\" ended (but not Lola's life!).\nAfter a few days she got better and soon became as lively as ever--the\nwild and excitable creature she is by nature, whom none would take to\nbe the mother of four children--and a \"learned dog\"--into the bargain!\nThe thing is--could the dog have caught up an _impression_ from some\nhuman mind--something she had heard said in conversation, and which she\nhad--in some mysterious way--assimilated and applied to her own life? I\ncannot tell, but I almost feel as if this must have been the case.\nThere can be no doubt that animals _have_ a sense of honour, yet it\nwould seem unlikely for it to function in the manner above narrated.\nYet how much remains still unaccounted for within a dog's soul--how\nmany attempts at unravelling will have to be made before the right\nclues have been touched, which shall lead us to our goal within this\nlabyrinth. There is so much which it is impossible to bring into\nco-ordination with the human psyche, for though there are many\nfundamental impulses, common to both man and beast, we cannot approach\nthe subject, nor yet measure it according to our human standards, where\nthe psychology of a dog is in question. Another thing: in educating\nthese dogs specially reared for experimental work--we should be careful\non no account to suppress those instincts, which are natural to them as\n_dogs_--i.e. their \"dog-individuality,\" transforming this--either by\npraise or blame. Just as certain conceptions and feelings, held by\ndifferent peoples differ fundamentally, so too, has every animal a\n_something_ which is _its very own_, an _innate something_, and\nthis--in order to successfully accomplish our ends--must be held\ninviolate. Now, this is, of course, very difficult--since to instruct\nand educate an animal is, of itself, an infringement on its true\nnature--and, indeed, the same might be said respecting the life it\nleads among human beings. Yet I believe that where an animal _feels_\nthat its own inner nature is left unmolested we may often succeed in\n\"_hearing the animal speak within the animal_\" (if I may so put it),\nrather than its \"human connexion.\" That sentence of Lola's: \"wegen\nihren Augen und Sorgen ohne Ruhe\" ( = because of their eyes and their\nsorrows without ceasing) certainly \"rang true\"--one could feel it as\nthe answer was being given--yet--where the meaning is dubious, as in\nsome of her replies which followed this one, decision becomes difficult\nindeed!\n\n\n\n\nTHE CONNEXION OF IDEAS\n\n\nThe ability to definitely connect one idea with another is clearly\napparent in the animal mind, and may be attributed to its excellent\nmemory and powers of attention. In everyday-life this becomes apparent\nas the reflex of their experiences, the impressions of which, having\nonce impinged on their sensibility have left their mark, so to speak,\nand this experience thus practically acquired, shows itself at times as\nthe shrewdest of wisdom, even though we may now know how their \"power\nof reasoning\" was arrived at--without words. We need only think of the\nway in which animals have time and again rescued their masters--going\nfor assistance in the most intelligent way--this being but one of the\nmany examples which occur to my mind. Nevertheless, a combination of\nthoughts, such as is carried out purely on the _mental_ plane is only\npossible in the case of an animal that has been trained. I had a very\npretty example of this on 14 September, 1916. I had taken Lola with me\nto a neighbouring estate. The rain was coming down in torrents, and we\nsat beneath the sheltering roof of the balcony and gazed out at this\nflood. \"Where does the rain come from--Lola?\" I asked; \"uzu,\" she\nreplied. \"And what does that mean?\" I queried. \"heaven.\" \"And what is\nthe water wanted for?\" She hesitated and tapped--\"ich zu taun!\" \"What\ndoes _taun_ mean? tell me differently!\" (as I thought she was evading a\ndirect answer). \"funo!\" \"Nonsense!\" \"yes!\" \"I want to know what _taun_\nmeans!\" \"when I don't hear!\" \"Nonsense! '_when you don't hear!_'--there\nis some letter wrong!\" \"yes.\" \"What should it be?\" \"b.\" \"Taub?\" ( =\ndeaf). \"yes.\"\n\nA week earlier I had explained \"eyes\" and \"ears\" to her, and the\nmeaning of blindness and deafness, and yet could not make out why she\nwas now using the word \"taub\" in this connexion.\n\n\"Did you mean that you did not understand me?\" \"no.\" \"Then why did you\nsay that?\" \"ich er (rather reluctantly) ... or ...\" \"Well----? and what\nmore?\" \"I won't say!\" \"You won't tell me?\" \"yes!\" The next day I\nreturned to this question, for I could not make out why she gave me\nsuch answers, and made such excuses. She well knew how determined I\ncould be in the matter of \"catechising,\" and that I will stand no\n\"nonsense\" when she begins her little game of rapping \"1!\"--the meaning\nof which, she had once informed me, was \"_I won't tell!_\" and the\nsequel to which I generally found to be that she would put me off with\nany word that might just happen to come into her head. But why had this\nremark occurred to her yesterday? I wanted to get to the bottom of it,\nso returning to the attack, said: \"Why wouldn't you tell me yesterday\nwhat water is good for?\" \"I thought of ear!\" \"What has water to do with\n'ear'?\" \"water in ear horrid!\" Here, then, was the reason! In her very\nfear she had not been able to bring forth her true answer--for, owing\nto me, the water had got into her ears--and made this lasting and\nunpleasant impression--when she was being bathed--or when I threw her\ninto a stream! The reader may already have noticed other instances\nwhere a direct connexion of ideas has occurred. I have purposely\nabstained from pointing to the obvious in each case, believing that\nanyone who is keenly interested will do so quickly enough for himself,\nand I am loth to weary my Public by needless repetitions.\n\n\n\n\nSPONTANEOUS REPLIES\n\n\nSpontaneous replies provide a special proof of this ability to form\nindependent thoughts, and is found both among horses and dogs. Such a\nreply is indeed the sudden and evident utterance of some thought, and\nof a thought which--to it--transcends all other thoughts at the moment:\none which regardless of all other questions which may at the time be\nput to it, looms largest, and the animal will therefore utter this\nremark, asked or unasked--and quite independently of any question, but\nmore after the manner of \"making an observation.\" Such a thought may\nhave nothing to do with the subject in hand, and persons who are\nparticipating in this conversation _a deux_, can only arrive at the\ninference of ideas after having carefully thought the matter over--it\nmay also be that they will fail to see any association of ideas at all.\nNow, it is indisputable that such replies belong to the most important\ncategory--for they may serve as proofs to those who themselves have not\nworked with animals for any length of time, and who, therefore, cannot\nbecome sincerely convinced as to the truth of the matter by travelling\nthe longer road of personal test and experience. The teacher of any\nhorse or dog of good parts does not need this proof: there are\nthousands of small instances which in their sum total prove\nimportant--trivial and uncertain though each one may be, when regarded\nby itself. It would be difficult to know how to convey these to anyone\nin words: glances, movements, a certain \"live appeal\"--it would require\na poet to catch and fix--in short--to idealize--telling us the true\ninwardness, so that we might indeed comprehend ... and even then he\nwould, I fear, make for weariness, when grappling with what well may\nseem interminable.[20] Here are a few examples:\n\n      [20] The poet, Hans Mueller, has touched most eloquently on the\n      power to think latent in animals in his book, \"Die Kunst sich zu\n      freuen.\"\n\n16 May, 1916: Lola was doing arithmetic and I had given her some new\nsums. Suddenly, instead of calculating, she gives--\"not reckon.\" I\nasked her the date, she replied \"16\"--adding of herself \"too little to\neat.\" In the course of the afternoon, Lola, who had gone with me to tea\nat B. L.'s, was shown some pictures: \"What is that?\" she was asked.\n\"re,\" (ein Reh = a deer) \"segen haus, ich wenig nur arbeite.\" \"Will you\ndo more here?\" \"yes.\" \"Arithmetic?\" \"Yes, yes!\" (very joyfully) and\nexcellent replies followed.\n\n3 January, 1916: On this date I began teaching her the capital letters\nof the Latin alphabet; A = a, B = b, and so on, when she suddenly\n\"butted in\" with \"go out.\" As she had worked very well up to that\nmoment I opened the door and let her out. But in five minutes she was\nback, looking anything but pleased; \"Well, didn't you like it?\" I\nasked; \"no!\" \"Why?\" \"come too!\" I venture to think that I have here\ngiven good proof in the matter of \"spontaneous\" utterances, the best,\nperhaps, being the one given at B. L.'s, where she complained of having\ndone insufficient work, for her fault-finding was generally the other\nway round! But she has always loved to show off in that particular\ncircle, sensing no doubt the friendly interest taken in her there.\n\n\n\n\nWRONG AND UNCERTAIN ANSWERS\n\n\nIf Lola is tired she will either not work at all, or--at most--work\nbadly, which is but natural! Yet there is another and even more\nfrequent reason than fatigue for her indifferent work. The dog may to\nall appearances be bright and fresh--leading me to expect the very best\nresults, and yet--with everything seemingly in her favour, she may that\nday be an utter failure. This is particularly unpleasant if on one of\nthese occasions visitors happen to be present, and more especially\nshould there be sceptics among them. For this failure to respond where\nthe subject happens to be one in which she has repeatedly given\nbrilliant proofs of what she really _can_ do, is embarrassing and\nhumiliating, for then those who are only too ready to scoff merely feel\ntheir case strengthened. Indeed, it needs some determination to keep\none's temper on such occasions, yet to \"let oneself go\" even for one\nmoment--would mean weeks of painful and laborious uphill work in order\nto regain the dog's confidence. One is often entirely at a loss as to\nthe reason of this \"inward withstanding,\" which may even elude long and\ncareful investigation. Now and again the answers may not be forthcoming\nwhen one is alone with her, and behold--! a stranger enters the room,\nand she becomes all friendly eagerness to do her best: then again, the\nexact reverse of this may be the case, or on some days she may be\nuseless both alone and before company. There have been times when she\nhas been delightful and engaging in every way--till work was mentioned\n... when the whole expression of her face would change, and she would\nassume her \"stupid look,\" deliberately, so it would seem, rapping out\nthe simplest answer wrongly! The very act of rapping is at such times a\nmere careless dragging of her paw--as though it had nothing to do with\nthe rest of her body. Pleading, threats, the nicest of tit-bits--all\nare then unavailing, and she remains _seemingly_ idiotic--the mere\nsight of her being enough to drive one wild!--for low be it spoken--_it\nis the sheerest impudence_!!! Indeed, the visitor who does not know\nher, and happens to \"strike\" on one of these bad days, would have to be\ndowered with more than his share of amiability and imagination, should\nhe be able to mentally visualize anything approaching \"brilliant\naccomplishments\" in the face of one of these fiascos. Whether these\n\"turns\" be due to sudden obstinacy, to some feeling of injury inflicted\neither by myself or the onlooker--to what on earth such tempers be due\nI cannot tell! but I have put up with this sort of thing for two hours\nat a stretch sometimes, keeping my self-control till at length I have\nhad to rush out of the room--relinquishing every hope of victory for\nthat day, and with a feeling of what seemed almost hatred against this\nunreasonable beast! although I must say that such feelings do not last\nvery long--for I am not a good \"hater\"--and then ... Lola would soon\ntry to \"make it up again\" in some touching way!\n\nI may say that for the first four months she worked splendidly before\nstrangers, and quite as well with me, but from that time onward her\nwork was equally _uncertain_--both in the presence of others and when\nalone with me. I know of no cause for this, I can only say that I often\nseemed to \"sense\" about her a feeling as though she considered these\nlabours superfluous; as though she had become in a manner\n\"disillusioned\" as to the \"results\" accruing from her work. Was the\npraise, or were the rewards inadequate? the fact remains, that on such\ndays utterly senseless answers were the most one could get after\nconstant and persuasive questioning, while the solutions of her sums\nwould be completely wrong. When once the novelty was gone, indifference\nand lack of interest soon took its place, and this applies to\neverything she learnt. In the beginning, close attention, and keen\nalertness--resulting in ready and intelligent replies, then a sudden\nslackening, so that it would seem useless for me to pursue the same\nsubject again for weeks. This tiresome trait (which, by the way, I can\nin part appreciate) may, I fear, in time attack her spelling too--and\nthen everything will be over, as far as Lola is concerned. Not that she\nwill be getting more stupid with increasing age! indeed, as she grows\nolder, she will probably be better than ever able to understand what is\nsaid to her, but she will no longer find it worth her while to pull\nherself together so as to do decent work. I shall, of course, do all I\ncan as far as trying to influence her so as to put off the evil\nmoment--but the fact is that one has here to do with a remarkably\nsensitive and obstinate living-creature, and one that is quite\nable--though in a passive way--to maintain its own standpoint.\n\nI shall now give a few specimens of the _almost_ unintelligible answers\ndragged from her, as it were, after much grave reproach:\n\n16 August, 1916: \"Lola, rap something!\" \"mal one lif unartig sein.\"\n\"What is the meaning of 'lif'? do you mean 'when you ran'?\" (lief =\nran, the past tense of laufen = to run). \"no.\" \"Did you learn that word\nfrom me?\" \"yes.\" \"Then explain yourself.\" \"ich rante in wald zu re\" ( =\nI ran in the wood after deer). Apparently she was in no mood for\nexplanations, and it was only after wrestling with her that I could get\nany sequence of words at all. At other times when urged to get on with\nthe subject she will in her contrariness rap as follows: \"o zu ich\" or\n\"e wo zu\" or \"zum zu wozu\" or \"we\" and so on--letters with which it is\nrarely possible to put together even such small words as _wo_ ( =\nwhere) or _zu_ ( = to, or for) and the longer one persists on such\noccasions, the more senseless her remarks become; it is the rarest\nthing for her to suddenly pull herself together so as to give a proper\nanswer. And here again I can find no excuse for her behaviour; though\nit may be that she dislikes my persistence, and therefore has recourse\nto any nonsense by way of a quick reply! So as to get her in some\nmanner to recognize the errors of her ways I have again and again\npersevered with the utmost patience, so as to arrive at some consistent\nanswer--yet all I have succeeded in arousing, has been increased\nreluctance on the dog's part.\n\n\n\n\nMATTERS WHICH--SO FAR--ARE UNACCOUNTED FOR, OR UNEXPLAINED\n\n\nAs will, indeed, be evident, there is still much that remains\nunexplained; much that it will be the task of the future to throw light\nupon. Tests which have been but uncertain in their results; accidental\ndiscoveries, the importance of which only becomes evident, after the\nresults have been tested in connexion with a number of animals. Among\nthese may be placed the more recent experiments dealing with the sense\nof scent, undertaken by Professor Jaeger, and in this category should\nbe placed also what I think to be a rather interesting test connected\nwith Lola: I was at the time staying with my family at Hohenheim, and I\nasked the dog how many pups her mother had had--including herself: she\nanswered \"12.\" I inquired of Professor Kraemer if this was so, and he\nsaid that at the time at which he had seen them there had only been\neleven. I then made the same inquiry in Mannheim, and found that there\nhad been twelve, but that one had died immediately after birth. It was\nthe only instance of which Lola knew about a dog having pups, so one\nday I asked her in fun (19 June, 1916). \"How many children will you\nhave?\" (Thinking that the answer would be 12). At first she replied\nwith \"yes!\" \"Do you know how many? why that's impossible!\" But she\nrapped \"9.\" \"How many boys?\" I asked. \"3.\" \"And how many girls?\" \"6.\" I\nthought that this statement was due merely to her desire to make some\nanswer, so I put the same question the next day--but the reply was\nagain, \"9.\" So I told my friend about this and we awaited the\ninteresting event in much suspense--it took place on the 22 June, 1916,\nin the presence of my friend, the housekeeper and myself and--_there\nwere nine puppies_! two males and seven little lady-dogs. I kept two of\neach, the others being put to death at once by one of the farm hands,\nfor--owing to the war, as well as to the fact that the pups were not\nthoroughbreds, I could not undertake to bring them all up. But, the\nquestion is--how could Lola have known that there would be nine?[21]\n\n      [21] At a meeting held by the Rolf Society at Stuttgart,\n      Professor Ziegler accounted for this accurate knowledge by\n      declaring that--prior to birth--the puppies lie in a row within\n      their mother's womb, and that if one moves, the others proceed to\n      move also, but only one after the other.\n\n\n\n\nALTERATIONS IN CHARACTER\n\n\nAs a result of all that has here been stated, the question may very\nnaturally arise: are there any indications such as lead to suspect a\nchange of character, or do any other practical results follow on these\neducational tests? Now, Lola is by nature lovable, lively, full of fun,\nand she has retained these traits to the present day. Her great\nexcitability has diminished, it is true, but this is probably due to\nher having grown more staid with years. Yet a difference is also to be\nfound where her character--her dog-soul--is in question: it may be\nnoticed in the suspicious way in which she now regards people, as\nthough she were \"drawing comparisons\" between them and herself. We\nhave, in fact, fallen somewhat in her estimation. She \"asks\"--so to\nspeak--as to where our vaunted superiority may lie, and would seem to\ncompare her newly-acquired knowledge--together with the existence\nforced upon her--with the life that is ours. Since she has made these\n\"educational advances\" one can often see in her eyes something that\namounts to an angry reproach--something like an impatient question, as\nto _why_ we have so much food and freedom as compared with what is\nmeted out to her. She follows our thoughts to a great extent, and our\nabilities no longer seem to impress her, since--to her--it is only\nthose which she herself has mastered that come under this heading at\nall, and here--a slight contempt for the \"oppressor\" is often\ndiscernable. There is also a greater show of independence and frequent\ncontrariness, owing to her diminished respect for our \"species,\" in\nshort--it becomes more difficult to deal with the dog. The days of\nblind confidence are past--even though an innate sense of devotion to\nman remains, for what has just been said, seems always to occur more as\nthe result of \"moments of reflection.\" Indeed, this entire educational\nprocess would have little that is joyful about it, were it not for the\nfeeling that the animal understands its friend, and is in a position to\nconverse with us within certain limits, and this outweighs and\ncompensates for all the rest!\n\nAs to the practical results--I can say little that is favourable. The\ndog's _thinking_ seems to be at variance with her acts: thought can\ntherefore, have little influence upon a dog's behaviour, for--as has\nbeen the case with dogs of every kind, from time immemorial--its\nactions are due to the excitement of the outer senses, such as scent,\ntaste, and hearing, and any emotions observable are but the direct and\ninward continuation of those external sensations, and, as such, last\nbut for a given time. What we may term the \"thought form\" that is bound\nto any given _word_, representing objective thought in its simplest\nform, rotates within a very limited circle, and is powerless over the\nanimal's feeling. For instance: Lola knows that she is forbidden to\n\"hunt\" i.e. to go after the game, etc., indeed she has shown in many of\nher replies that she is well aware of what \"totgeschossen\" ( = to be\nshot dead) means. And yet--once the scent is up, off she goes, and\nnothing will prevent her--for, she _must_ go!\n\nThis is a particularly strong characteristic which beating and being\ndeprived of her food may sometimes _check_, but which her own powers of\nreflection do not cure: and it is the same thing with most of her\nfaults. At times it will be unreasoning obstinacy, but even where she\nuses a certain amount of reflection, the _result_ is identical. It has\nbeen no better where--with the help of thought--we have endeavoured to\nbring about actual results. An animal can be got to understand and\ncarry out certain injunctions, such as--\"sit up and beg,\" \"lift up your\npaw,\" \"go to your bed,\" \"go out of the door,\" and much more of the\nsame description, while after instruction it will understand \"behind\nthe stove lies a biscuit,\" yet _action_ seldom results from such\nknowledge. The dog's eyes will brighten, and it is evident that it has\nperfectly well comprehended the meaning of the words, indeed--this much\ncan be easily ascertained by questioning it--but the dog will seem\nincapable of translating what it has comprehended into action. At such\ntimes Lola will rush about, as if her limbs would not obey--as though\nthe influence she could bring to bear on them was not sufficiently\npowerful--and the final result is excitement. Connexion with the\nmotor-nerves does not come into being in response to the action of the\ncerebrum. As the result of repeated written and spoken orders it is\npossible (with a certain amount of additional aid) to set up this\nconnexion from without, yet, even then, the actual effect is but\nmoderately successful. On the other hand, action in the reverse\nway--from the nerves or senses to the brain--is easy where the dog is\nconcerned. Lola can report about things she has done, such as--\"saw\ndeer,\" \"drank milk,\" \"went into wood,\" \"was naughty,\" \"ate some of the\ncow,\" for reflection gives more time to master the subject, and to\nnotice what is past, and this will therefore show, that in the way of\npractical results, the best will be those obtained by asking a dog what\nhe has seen, heard, or scented, etc. Indeed, it is along these lines\nthat the police dogs have proved their worth and importance. Yet it is\nvery necessary that one should make sure that one's dog is not a liar,\nbut an animal capable of taking up its job in the right manner. With\nour present knowledge, however, we are unlikely to achieve very much,\nsince we cannot say to a dog--\"go here or there\"--or--\"take this letter\nto so and so.\"\n\nNot but what dogs have--in exceptional cases and after training--learnt\nto carry out such instructions, but it has resulted _without their\nthought-activity having been developed_. They get familiar with a\ncertain road, and--basket in mouth--they will proceed to the baker's\nbut--independently of habit and external impression--by the mere appeal\nto the brain or by means of the most persuasive words, we can attain to\nnothing worth mentioning, nothing that could be of distinct value,\nwhere a dog is kept for use. The sense, the object, and the reason for\nthis educational work must be sought on other grounds.\n\n\n\n\nA VARIETY OF ANSWERS\n\n\nIt was some time after Lola had mastered the art of spelling before I\nwas able to get her to make independent replies. The first of these was\ngiven on the 13 April, 1916, and from that time onward they became\neasier and more frequent: most of those I have set down date from that\nperiod. These answers were at once noted, according to their numerals,\nand when the sentence was complete it was transposed into letters of\nthe alphabet. Whenever there were any spelling mistakes, the words were\nplaced before her, and she was told to name each successive wrong\nletter in reading over her answer. As _I_ knew the equivalent letters,\nI was able to write them down at once, and if the reply was a short one\nand no paper at hand, I could memorize the letters, and enter them in a\nbook as soon as the lesson was over--adding the questions to which such\nanswers had been given as well as the dates. All other questions and\nanswers, as well as particulars relating to new exercises were also set\ndown here.\n\nHere is an answer I received from her on the 13 April, 1916: Lola was\nstaying with me at Hohenheim, where we had arrived on the previous day,\nand I proceeded to Stuttgart in the morning. When I got home in the\nevening I asked Lola: \"Is it nice here? have you had good food at\nfather's?\" to which the answer--quite wide of the mark--was--\"wo wald?\"\n( = where is the wood?) For I had been telling her about all she would\nbe able to enjoy and that, among other delights, there would be the\nwoods; as however, her afternoon walk had only lain through the fields,\nher mind was now absorbed with the one idea--\"where was the wood?\"--to\nthe oblivion of everything else.\n\n15 April: On this day the written question was put to her: \"Why does\nLola like going in the woods?\" the reply was at once forthcoming, and I\ndictated it to Frau Professor Kindermann. \"Where there is wood also\ndeer and hare\"--she was not quite clear in her spelling at first,\nindeed, in this respect she sometimes reminds one of a foreigner--as\nalso in the matter of her grammatical mistakes.\n\nThe next day, after having done a few sums to please some friends who\nwere present, she was asked: \"Who is the dog in the room?\" \"I!\" she\nreplied--not \"Lola\" as we had all expected. (Rolf has as yet never\nalluded to himself as \"I\"!)\n\nTwo days later she was asked in writing: \"How many dogs can reckon and\nspell?\" To this she began her reply in a very brisk and lively mood,\nbut soon wavered, as though at a loss for the right expressions, then\nfollowed a short pause--and finally she resumed her rapping with\nrenewed animation. The reply, it will be noticed, is detailed, and does\nnot keep to the plain question that had been put. \"how many have been\ntaken (for it)? Rolf talks, counts; two more\" (short pause) \"I also,\nalso heinz and ilse.\" For, so as to fire her ambition, I had told her\nabout her brother and sister, Heinz and Ilse.\n\n19 April: \"Lola,\" I asked, \"what was it that ran away from you on the\nmeadow?\" \"cat!\" \"What did you want to do with the poor cat?\" \"kill!\"\n\"Have you no pity?\" \"no!\" \"Then is the cat right if she kills you?\"\n\"_no!_\" \"Why?\" (The reply to this was rapped indistinctly.) \"Have you\nno pity for any man or animal?\" \"for dog!\"...\n\n22 April: I had told her that my brother was coming, and that he wore a\nfield-grey coat and was a soldier. When he arrived I said to her: \"Who\nis this?\" \"Your brother.\"\n\nNext day she was asked in writing: \"What did Lola see swimming in the\nwater?\" \"duck!\" I had shown her a duck on the previous afternoon.\n\n26 April: On this day Lola appeared before Professors Kraemer, Mack,\nKindermann and Ziegler, of Hohenheim, which resulted in these gentlemen\nforwarding the following statement to the \"Mitteilungen fuer\nTierpsychologie\" ( = Communications respecting the psychology of\nAnimals), series 1916; Number 1, p. 11:\n\n    \"EXAMINATION OF LOLA BY PROFESSORS KRAeMER, MACK, KINDERMANN AND\n    ZIEGLER\n\n    \"In our presence Lola solved a number of sums, such as: 5 + 8 = 13.\n    30 + 10 - 15 = 25. 4 Mark - 1 mark 20 = 2 mark. 80.\n\n    \"She next counted the number of persons present. After this,\n    several dots were scattered about a sheet of paper: at first she\n    put their number down as 19--but corrected this to 18. Lola then\n    told us the time: it was 4.16m., and after this she did some\n    spelling. When shown the picture of a flower she rapped: \"blum\"\n    (Blume = flower), and to my somewhat faulty drawing of a cat she\n    responded with \"tir\" (Tier = animal), while finally to the question\n    of what was the name of the Mannheim dog she replied \"mein fadr\"\n    (Vater = father)--we all having expected her to say Rolf. Then\n    followed the musical tests which amazed us most of all, for here\n    she exhibited an ability lacking in many an individual.\"\n\n                     *      *      *      *      *\n\n27 April: Lola very tired: groans and does everything wrong. I said:\n\"Are you lazy?\" She replies \"no.\" \"Then why are you answering so\nbadly?\" \"go!\" \"Who is to go?\" \"_tired!_\"\n\n29 April: I asked Lola why she had not attended to me on the 22nd,\nwhen--on a country expedition we had made together--she had insisted on\nrunning after the game when I had called her back. I had had to hunt\nafter her for ten hours the next day, finding her--by the merest\nchance--at a peasant's house. She had settled down there alongside of a\nsheep-dog to watch the sheep, and seemed by no means pleased to see me;\nusually she is delighted! Her reply on this occasion was--\"Lola went in\nwood, also lay down and was hungry.\" I returned to the question later\nin the afternoon when she made the rejoinder--\"sought, didn't find.\"\n\n30 April: Once more I returned to the incident mentioned above and Lola\nanswered \"to marry a dog\"--(the consequences of this escapade becoming\napparent, when Lola presented us with her litter of pups on 22 June).\nThen Lola added a spontaneous remark on her own account for, seeing a\nbiscuit in my hand, she rapped \"I to eat!\"\n\n                     *      *      *      *      *\n\nOn 1 May little was forthcoming in the matter of arithmetic--with which\nwe always began our lessons, for Lola rapped: \"too tired.\"\n\n3 May: In reply to my question as to what she had had to eat at the\npeasant's house she said: \"milk.\"\n\nThe next day I asked her \"where is my friend living now?\" to which she\nanswered. \"Hanhof.\" (N.B. A name under which she includes the entire\ndistrict). \"What is the colour of the woods now?\" And she answered.\n\"Green.\" Then \"Why are you looking at me so crossly?\" \"We.\" \"In your\nhead?\" \"Yes.\" \"What has given you a headache?\" \"Learning.\"\n\n8 May: Lola had been rolling herself about in some frightfully smelly\nmess--a thing she, like other dogs, never loses an opportunity of\ndoing. \"Do you _like_ that smell?\" I asked. \"Yes!\" \"But don't you know\nquite well that I do _not_ like it?\" \"Yes!\" \"Then why do you always\ndo it again and again?\" \"I love it so!\" The same afternoon, after her\nmusical tests, the maid came into the room to lay the fire. \"What is\nKaetchen doing at the stove?\" I asked. \"Fire,\" replied Lola.\n\nThe next day: \"Lola! who do you like best of all people and animals?\"\n\"Ich!\" (1). \"If you mean _yourself_ you should say \"mich\" (myself)\", so\nshe at once rapped \"mich!\" \"And after yourself?\" \"Dich!\" (\"thee,\" the\nfamiliar of you commonly used in German). A frank remark, at all\nevents, and without the taint of human egoism!\n\n10 May: Lola has been gnawing a bone: not knowing of what animal it\nwas, I put the question to her and she replied: \"re\" (reh = deer). The\ntruth of this being confirmed in the kitchen. I then asked: \"What bones\ndo you like best--deer, hares, wuzl\" (this is her own name for a pig),\n\"or ox?\" Answer: \"Wuzl!\" \"Are you pleased that you know more than other\ndogs?\" \"No.\" And then--as though after due reflection--\"no!\"\n(_Emphatically._)\n\n11 May: I showed Lola a biscuit, shaped rather imperfectly in the form\nof a fish, saying: \"What is this--an animal that swims in the water?\"\nReply: \"Fish!\" In this case I do not think she had really recognized\nit, but had named the only animal she knew of connected with water,\nwhich--after all--was rather clever of her!\n\n12 May: \"Lola!\" I asked, \"would you like to be a human being?\" \"No.\"\n\"Why not?\" I asked--showing her a biscuit. She (promptly): \"I eat!\"\n\"No! not till you have answered!\" \"Because of work!\" A little later I\nsaid: \"Do you belong to me Lola?\" Very energetically--\"No!\" \"To whom do\nyou belong then?\" \"To myself.\" \"And to whom do I belong? do I belong to\nyou?\" \"No!\" \"Whose Henny am I?\" \"Your own!\" These amusing answers bear\nthe very impress of the animal's sense of independence: she is loth to\nbe considered a \"chattel,\" like some chair or table!\n\n17 May: In the presence of my friend and of two dogs I asked\nher--\"Lola, why don't you like Dick?\" (Dick being one of the dogs\npresent.) \"Too wild!\" was Lola's comment. \"What do you like best to\neat?\" \"Ich ese wi so mag!\" \"Is that quite correct?\" \"No.\" \"Which word\nshould be different?\" \"4!\" \"Then what should it be?\" \"Ich.\" \"So it is\nto be: ich esse wie ich mag?\" \"Ja!\" ( = I eat as (or what) I choose.)\n\n31 May: Lola did her sums badly, and I spoke very seriously to her;\nafter which she improved, rapping out an independent remark: \"say I am\ngood!\" She wanted to hear that I was ready to \"make it up\" again! That\nevening, some friends being present--I wrote on a scrap of paper--\"bon\njour!\" showed it to her for a moment and then removed it, saying: \"now\nrap what you have read!\" And she rapped: \"bon jur!\" Having only missed\nout the \"o\"; the word had not been spoken, so that I had naturally\nthought to see the \"o\" among the other letters.\n\n2 June: Lola was to write a letter to a lady whose daughter had been\nstaying with me on a visit. The dog was much attached to this young\nlady, and had frequently worked with her. She began her letter with all\nsorts of nonsense so that at length I said: \"First rap 'dear' and then\ntell her about the biscuits you had from Irene.\"\n\nThe letter: \"Dear, certainly Irene is very nice to me\" ... then \"were\"\n... \"What's the meaning of that?\" I interrupted, but Lola lay down and\nsaid \"Zu we!\" ( = too indisposed.)\n\n3 June: \"Will you work now?\" \"No--we!\" \"Where have you a pain?\" \"O\nsag!\" \"What am I to say?\" \"Oh seh!\" \"But what am I to see?\" \"Ich!\" \"I\nam to look and see where you have a pain?\" \"Yes, yes!\" But these\n\"pains\" seemed to have been called forth by laziness and possibly some\nslight fatigue.\n\n15 June: A lady has come to stay with me for a few days and I said to\nLola: \"Why do you like Fraeulien Grethe?\" \"Ich is zu artig.\" (This is\nindistinct but probably meant she is kind to me.) Presumably she could\nthink of nothing else to say.\n\n25 June: Lola had been brought indoors--away from her young family, and\nI said: \"Is there anything you would like to have in the stable, now\nthink?\" \"wenig uzi!\" \"What is uzi? do you mean music?\" Answer. \"Lid\"\n( = lied.) \"What is that--singing?\" \"Yes!\" \"Do you like to listen to us\nwhen we sing?\" \"Yes, yes!\"\n\n24 July: \"Lola! now think of something I am to do: give me an order!\"\n(By the way, in reply to a similar question put to Rolf by the wife of\nColonel Schweizerbarth, at Degerloch, he had commanded her to \"wedeln\"\n( = to wag!) N.B. This word being only used in connexion with _a tail_\nin German!) But Lola merely ordered me \"to work\"--\"What am I to work\nat?\" I inquired. \"Raking the garden, reckoning, writing or reading?\"\nAnd I was somewhat surprised, for she was used to seeing me at work at\nsomething or other for the greater part of the day; but after mature\nreflection she added--\"ales\" (Alles = everything).\n\n27 July: To-day I invited her to tell me something she might be\nthinking about, adding: \"Will you say something?\" \"Ja, esen.\" \"Oh,\nLola!\" I said in desperation, \"why all this talk about eating! about\nfood! don't I hear enough of it from senseless labourers and maids? and\nnow you begin too! It can't be otherwise, at present: say something\nelse!\" \"Ich am esen\" ... \"What? _again!_ well go on\" \"... zu wenig\nnarung.\" \"Ich am essen zu wenig nahrung\" ( = I from my food (derive)\ntoo little nourishment). \"Ja!\" Poor Lola!\n\n10 August: To-day is my father's birthday: he is staying with us, and\nLola was to give him a \"good wish.\" I suggested all kinds of things,\nsuch as good health; long life; and so on, but she would have none of\nthem. At last she rapped \"Ich wunsche esen\"; and after a short pause\nshe continued, \"... und ich auch\" ( = I wish him food and for myself\ntoo.) \"Now give him a second wish: something you yourself find good.\"\nSo she said: \"Re jagen und has....\" \"And a third?\" \"Heiraten\" ( = to\nmarry). Such were the dog's wishes for my father's natal day! Food,\nHunting and Marriage ... the first one being ever the central idea in a\ndog's thoughts--and yet, how necessary are all these three wishes to\nthe maintenance of species--\"urged ever onward by the driving-power of\nhunger and of love!\" after all--there is something very simple and\ndirect about an animal!\n\n30 August: To-day I asked Lola: \"Do you wish every one to marry and\nhave children?\" \"No.\" \"Why not?\" \"Arbeiten unmoeglich,\" ( = work\nimpossible). \"Go on: if it is impossible, one simply does not work!\"\n\"Und ausgen ...\" \"Go on?\" \"Auch zu vil esen!\" (und ausser dem, zu viel\nessen = and besides that, too much eating). Here spoke experience.\n\n1 September: Lola was shown some dots on a sheet of white paper, but\ndeclined to count them. \"Why won't you count?\" \"Ich ursache one wisen!\"\n( = I have a cause (reason), without knowing (it)). Then she began to\ntremble violently, and I asked her why--to which she replied: \"Ich\nkalt\" (I (am) cold).\n\n2 September: An old farm labourer and his wife had come to my room to\nsee the dog, and in their honour Lola consented to do some sums. The\nold man was delighted when, on my suggestion, Lola spelt out his name:\nshe rapped \"Wilem,\" and when I said: \"Did you hear that from me?\" she\nanswered: \"No.\" \"From his wife?\" \"Yes!\" This accounted for the\nspelling, as the woman is from the Rheinland district, and says\n\"Willem\" for Wilhelm.\n\n6 September: \"Lola, why did you bite Jenny, yesterday?\" (Jenny is a\nterrier lady-dog.) Answer. \"Em ...\" \"What does that mean?\" \"Wuest a--a\nund renen.\" ( = she was a dirty dog and also hunted.)\n\n7 September: Lola came in from the farm quite wet, and I wanted to know\nthe reason of this, as only the woods were still wet from the recent\nrains. To my question she made answer: \"I in wet.\" \"Were you in the\ngrass or in the woods?\" I demanded. \"Grass!\" \"Is the wet grass nice?\"\n\"Saw deer in wood--why I came to you!\" In spite of such a tempting\nsight, she was evidently in a virtuous frame of mind: in earlier days\nshe could never resist giving chase.\n\n8 September: \"Why are you not eating your food? is it bad?\" \"Yes!\"\n\"What is wrong about it?\" \"Smell!\"\n\n20 September: \"Lola,\" I said, \"give me the reason for why you are\nalive! do you know one?\" \"Yes, no.\"\n\nThe next day: \"Now tell me your answer as to why you are living?\"\n\"Yes!\" \"Well?\" \"Egal ich lebe gern!\"... (i.e. _egal_ is an expression\nof indifference, such as \"_it is all the same to me_, I like living\").\nHow simple and complete is the dog-point-of-view! \"And is that all?\ndidn't you wish to add something more?\"... \"in Welt\" ( = in (the)\nworld). The expression \"egal\" she will probably have picked up from me.\n\n22 September: To-day I noticed by Lola's behaviour that she wanted to\nsay something, so I put the question to her, and she replied. \"Yes.\"\n\"Well, go ahead!\" \"I wish to pay you for getting food for me!\" \"Do you\nwant to give me money?\" \"Yes!\" \"But, where are you going to get it\nfrom--can you tell me that?\" \"Yes!\" \"From where?\" \"From you!\" There was\nsomething quite logical about this way of arguing, for Lola had heard\nmuch talk about money, farm-hands being often paid by hour--and she had\nno doubt been an attentive listener and observer, at such transactions.\nThen--all of a sudden--she rapped. \"I without work!\" \"What do you want\nto have?\" \"Haue!\" ( = a beating!). I thought I had misunderstood her, so\nrepeated--\"haue?\" \"Yes!\" \"Say something else!\" \"Reckoning.\" But the\nfact remained that she really longed for a beating--not having had one\nfor a long time, for to my repeated inquiries she kept on with \"Yes!\"\nSo at length to make sure, I fetched my riding-whip and gave her a\nlight flick, saying--\"Is that what you want?\" \"Yes!\" \"And do you want\nmore?\" \"Yes!\" she insisted, though all of a tremble, and--unwillingly\nenough--I had to administer one more.\n\n13 November: Lola had to write a letter to a lady of whom she is very\nfond: it ran as follows--\"dear, I have just been in the yard, I like\neating biscuits, I kiss you!\" (I think this letter bears the evidence\nof being Lola's own composition!) Later in the afternoon, when she was\nout with me, I saw a notice put up saying: \"Dogs are to be led on a\nleash\"--and I invited her to read it, but she would only give it a\nglance. Both on our way back, and when we got home I returned to the\nsubject, saying: \"What was on that notice-board?\" But she rapped \"No!\"\n\"What? you mean to say you don't know?\" She had, however, already\nstarted rapping again--\"ich unaro....\" \"Go on! surely the _o_ should be\na _t_?\" (Thinking she meant unartig = naughty). \"No!\" \"Then what should\nit be?\" \"No.\" \"Is it a dog's word?\" \"Yes!\" \"Well, tell me in a way that\nI can understand!\" \"No!\" \"You can't do so?\" \"No!\" \"Say something like\nit!\" \"Ja! ich irre, ich es ansehe morgen!\" ( = yes! I erred, I (will)\nlook at it to-morrow!)\n\nOn one occasion I had explained to her that there were also other\nlanguages; English and French, for instance, and I now once more tried\nto influence her memory by my own thoughts.\n\n\"Lola,\" I said, \"do you know what is meant when I say--_je veux\nmanger_--do you understand that?\" \"Yes!\" \"Then tell me!\" \"Ich wil\nesen!\" \"But do you understand this: _il faut que je travaille_?\" \"No!\"\n\"Think again!\" \"No!\" \"Travailler?\" \"No!\" This proving that what I had\nnot taught and explained to her she was incapable of saying--or rather,\nspelling.\n\n15 November: The following incident was communicated to the\n\"Mitteilungen of the Society for Animal Psychology\" (series 1916, No.\n2, page 74), by Professor Ziegler:\n\n\"Lola had been for a walk with Professor Kindermann, and on her return\nwas discovered to have a feather in her mouth. Fraulein Kindermann\nasked her: \"What animal's feather is that?\" she answered: \"Hen.\" \"How\ndid you come by the feather?\" \"Killed hen!\" \"Why?\" \"Eat up!\" \"And have\nyou eaten it up?\" \"No!\" \"Why did you run away?\" \"Fear.\" \"Of what were\nyou frightened, of people?\" \"No!\" \"Then of what?\" \"Ursache!\" ( = cause,\ni.e. cause of fear.) There is something rather charming here in the way\nin which the dog confesses to her misdeeds, and at the same time owns\nup to having a bad conscience!\"\n\n16 November: Lola must have noticed to-day that there was roast hare on\nthe midday dinner table, for in the afternoon when invited to make some\nremark she rapped: \"Zu wenig ...\" (then hesitatingly) \"h ...\" \"Are you\nafraid?\" I inquired. \"Yes.\" \"Nonsense, I shall not scold you!\" \"...\nas!\"--\"Zu wenig has--who?\" ( = too little hare) \"Ich, o we!\" ( = I, oh\nalas!)\n\n18 November: To-day she started to rap nothing but nonsense; but in\ntime it became more distinct, and ended up with \"ich zaelen!\" ( = I\n(wish to) count). I asked her if this was a fact--and she promptly said\n\"No!\" She then kept on making her usual sign that she wanted to go down\ninto the yard, so I let her out, but soon she ran up again quite\nbriskly, and at once rapped out clearly and distinctly.--\"Warum ich und\nsie so rau geartet?\" \"Is this what you mean?\" \"Yes!\" \"And--who is si\nmeant for?\" \"Heni!\" \"_What?_\" I exclaimed, \"you are suddenly addressing\nme as _sie_?!\"[22] \"Yes!\" \"But Lola! that is what we only say to people\nwe don't know well! you have always called me _du_ because you were\nfond of me--isn't that so? are you saying _sie intentionally_ now?\"\n\"Yes!\" \"Yes? but why?\" \"Because strange!\" \"How _strange_?\" \"Yes!\" \"Was:\nwarum ich und sie so rau reartet ( = why are I and you so roughly\nconstituted?) the end of the sentence you began before?\" \"No.\" N.B. In\nthis manner did she wish to lodge her complaint, so to speak, against\nme for not always understanding her when she prefers to try and \"rub\nin\" the meaning of her faulty spelling, by gazing at me in her \"intent\"\nfashion--indeed, I had always sensed her annoyance at times when she\nhad not been able to gain her ends in this way! In simple matters, such\nas \"wish to eat,\" or \"go out,\" I could of course, guess her desires,\nbut she was of opinion that I ought to be more \"understanding\"\nstill--and this is difficult!\n\n      [22] Sie = you is the more formal mode of address, as opposed to\n      the familiar \"du\" = \"thou.\"\n\n1 December: \"Lola, what will become of you when you are dead? what will\nbecome of your body?\" \"If...\" \"No; that is no answer! You are to spell\nproperly!\" \"Zu esen fuer wurm\" ( = food for worm.) \"And, Lola ... your\nsoul? do you know what that is?\" \"Ja, nur get in himmel!\" ( = yes (it)\nonly goes to heaven!) \"Did you hear people say that?\" \"Yes!\" From this\nit would seem that any seeking after the dog's own sensations on the\nsubject are useless. By the way, some time before I had read Rolf's\nremark to her: \"All tier hat seel, guck in aug\" ( = all animals have\nsouls, look in their eyes). And I then asked her: \"Do you know what a\nsoul is?\" And she had said: \"Yes.\" \"Have I a soul?\" \"Yes!\" \"Has a stone\none?\" \"No!\" \"And a horse?\" \"Yes!\" \"A bird?\" \"Yes!\" \"And water?\" \"No!\"\n\"Have all dogs?\" \"Yes!\" Lola had rapped this all out very nicely, and I\npraised her, to which she made response by a little spontaneous\nrapping--\"isan...\" \"What does that mean?\" \"ich o wi gluecklich!\" ( = I,\noh--how happy!) \"Because I am pleased?\" \"Yes! yes!\"\n\n4 December: To-day I said to Lola: \"Why don't I understand\ndog-language?\"[23] \"Oft eil\" ( = often hurried.) \"Yes, but even when I\nhave tried, and paid attention I cannot understand!\" \"In hauch--zsuvzaes\"\n( = the first two words are \"in breath,\" the remainder quite vague!) In\na quarter of an hour I showed her a card on which a small child and a\ndog were looking at each other, and beneath--in Latin characters was\nwritten: \"Wer bist du?\"[24] \"Can you read that?\" I asked. \"Yes!\" So I\nput the card aside and said: \"What is the second word?\" \"Bist.\" \"But do\nyou understand the sentence?\" \"Yes.\" \"Which is saying it--the dog or\nthe child? Look at both of them, they are young, and have met for the\nfirst time in their lives.\" \"Both!\"\n\n      [23] Lola often uses quite incomprehensible words and once\n      declared that they belonged to \"a particular dog-language\"--my\n      further inquiries have been quite fruitless, and these words were\n      probably her own inventions!\n\n      [24] \"Who are you?\"\n\n11 December: \"Lola! why do you and Frechi always bite one another when\nyou are allowed to go loose?\" \"Ambitious!\" \"Ambitious to see who is the\nstronger?\" \"Yes!\" \"And which of you two is the strongest?\" \"Frechi!\"\nShe had applied the word with a nice sense of fitness: when two dogs\nmeet for the first time this is exactly the feeling that arises--either\n_one_ of them is by far the strongest--a fact that both of them will be\naware of, and silently acknowledge--or, their strength may be pretty\nevenly matched--in which case a fight will ensue, possibly even several\nfights, before the issue is finally decided. Is this not often\n_spiritually_ the case between man and man?\n\n13 December: Lola had been chasing after the game and had been punished\nby having to go without her food. She was however, in high spirits and\nrapped \"esen!\" following this hint in half an hour with \"zu esen!\" ( =\n(give me) to eat!) I explained to her that this could not be done: that\na punishment was imperative, if she would not break herself of her evil\nhabits. Then Lola rapped out suddenly. \"Lere mich artig sein!\" ( = teach\nme to be good!\")\n\n22 December: I have been showing her a picture in a book of Fairy\nTales. My brother was present at the time, and it was the picture of\nthe house of a robber, the house being drawn so as to represent a face:\nit had indeed been very cleverly executed.\n\n\"Lola,\" said I, \"whatever is there about that house--do you notice\nanything?\" (And thought she would rap \"face.\") She rapped. \"Is a\nperson!\" I avoided looking at it again and merely asked, \"Tell me, does\nit look friendly, or angry, or nice?\" \"Spetisch.\" \"Spoettische?\" ( =\nmocking.) \"Yes.\" And we both thought this reply admirable, for the\n\"house\" _does_ look at one most \"mockingly\" out of the corners of its\neyes.\n\n31 December: \"Lola, have you got worms?\" \"Yes!\" \"How did you get them?\"\n\"Ja, zige!\" \"An animal?\" \"Yes.\" \"Is there a goat ( = ziege) near here?\"\n\"Yes!\" I had seen none about, but asked her again: \"Where is the goat?\"\n\"Droif.\" \"Do you know the name?\" \"Mittel!\" ( = her expression for\nanything she is uncertain about.) \"Why did you say _droif_?\" \"I not\nany sort of word will give!\" On making further inquiries I found that\nthere _was_ a goat in the immediate neighbourhood, and that the name\nof the family who owned it was _Freund_. I had never mentioned this\nname to Lola, so that she could only have heard it in the course of\nconversation among the people about, and then not very distinctly. In\nthe evening, while I was absent, Lola stole some Marzipan. I expostulated\nwith her in a serious, though friendly manner, and this evidently made\nher feel exceedingly uncomfortable, for she suddenly rapped--\"Sag irgend\nboese!\" ( = say something angry!)\n\n1 January, 1917: \"What is to-day?\" \"1.1. 1917!\" \"On this day we give\ngood wishes to every one, so I will wish you much to eat, good health,\nand much going out: now wish me something!\" \"Am geln ...\" (most\nindistinctly) I told her to repeat it, and she began again--\"Am gu ...\nelen zu aufhoeren!\" (i.e. am quaelen zu aufhoeren = to cease teasing.)\n\"You can't put a _w_ after a _g_,\" I told her, but she persisted, and I\nwaited in patience. There is no \"q\" in her alphabet, so she had found a\nway out very neatly! \"Do I tease Lola?\", I asked. \"mich!\" ( = me!) This\nis indeed sad! and I am not conscious of my failing, indeed, I think\nthat Lola has a very good time on the whole!\n\n7 January, 1917: \"Now tell me something you would like to have\nexplained, but mind you rap loudly and distinctly.\" \"Ich o si so wenig\nkene.\" \"Who is si?\" \"Dich!\" ( = thou!) (The reply had been \"I know (or\nunderstand) you so little.\") \"Tell me what it is you don't understand\nabout me? tell me something every day: what is it now?\" \"Work when I\nsay no!\" I tried to explain to her that my anxiety to get her work so\nlay in my desire for more knowledge about dogs--so that I might be able\nto tell everybody all about them, and thus make them kinder to animals.\nI took much time and trouble over my explanation, and at length Lola\ngave a responsive \"Yes.\"\n\n10 January: To-day we returned to the foregoing conversation: \"Tell me\nwhat you don't understand about me?\" \"The food has also been worse\nlately!\" she remarked. On this vexed subject I also attempted\nelucidation. I sought to explain the conditions of war, and that the\namount of food available became less in consequence: that we people\nwere no better off in this respect, and so on! And at length she again\nsaid \"Yes!\" Then I thought I would change the subject and asked her:\n\"Why did Geri sigh so outside the door last night, and why does he look\nso unhappy to-day?\" \"er auch hat esen wolen!\" ( = he also wanted to\neat!)\n\nIn the evening I said: \"Lola, what _is_ it you don't understand about\nme?\" \"Cause is often roughness!\" She remarked--and here I really felt\nthat there was little that I must needs explain--for I am not conscious\nof meriting her reproach on this score.\n\n11 January: \"Tell me something, Lola!\" I pleaded. \"Mistake to go out so\nlittle,\" she observed. Here she was emphatically in the right! She had\nnot been out much lately, for it had been very wet--and she needs\nplenty of exercise. In the evening I invited her to \"say something\nmore.\" \"o we gwelen!\" \"What worries you?\" \"ere nehemen!\" ( = taking\nhonour!) \"Taking honour about what?\" \"eid!\" (So the old story has not\nyet faded from her memory).\n\n12 January: \"Well, now you've told me ever so much that you can't\nunderstand about me! But is there anything more?\" \"Zeig audawer\n(Ausdauer) in libe zu mir!\" \"_Ausdawer?_ Isn't there a letter wrong?\"\n\"Yes, 4\"; \"What should it be?\" \"Au!\" So the sentence ran, \"Zeig\nAusdauer in Liebe zu mir!\" ( = show constancy in your love for me!)\nYes, indeed I will, you dear beast!\n\n\n\n\nULSE'S FIRST INSTRUCTION\n\n\nAs I have stated, when Lola came to me she could already say \"yes\" and\n\"no\"; she had even some slight acquaintance with the numbers and\ncounting. The bridge leading from man to animal had been started, and\nthe first difficulties embarked on. The further I pursued these studies\nwith Lola, the keener became my curiosity to know whether I should be\nequal to the task of tackling this work where an animal in its primeval\nstate was concerned, thus driving in the first props of this bridge\nmyself! I tried my 'prentice hand in this work on Geri, the beautiful\nGerman sheep-dog, who had come into my possession in 1914. This\ndog--owing to excess of breeding, and also, perhaps, to the impressions\nimbibed in his youth was unusually shy and melancholy--he lacked all\nnatural energy to \"cut a figure\" in any way; he had learnt to say \"yes\"\nand \"no,\" and I feel sure that he understood me very well, but his\nnervousness and his constant fear held him back from rapping out\nanything beyond his _yes_ and _no_ answers. (At a later date I was\nobliged to give him away, owing to the scarcity of food.) Lola's\nprogeny, therefore, seemed to offer more promising material for fresh\nventures, but all--excepting the little lady-dog--Ulse--had been\ndispersed, going to their several new owners, before the winter days\nimmediately after Christmas brought me sufficient leisure for further\nstudy, and as I had to give part of this time to Lola, as well as to\nthe writing of this book, I had but a small margin left to expend on\nthe little newcomer. Nor can I say, to tell the truth, that my interest\nin her was very great; she had already been promised to someone, and\nthe fact of her still being with me was due to the difficulties of\ntravel in these abnormal times. But, finally, sheer pity for the small\ncreature--sitting alone in the stable--led me to bring her in for a few\nhours at a time so as to play about with me and Lola. One day it so\nhappened that I had sent Lola off, and, being alone with Ulse, (mostly\naccustomed to intercourse with the maids) I attempted to teach her to\nunderstand: \"Sit down!\" To do this I pressed the little creature down\non her haunches, saying, \"_Sit down!_\" And after I had repeated this\nthree times she understood quite well what I meant, sitting down\nobediently at my slightest touch, and looking at me inquiringly out of\nher little bright eyes. I repeated this again the next day, and also\ntouched her paw, saying: \"_paw!_\" Then I took the small paw in my hand\nand said: \"Give a paw!\" and in a few days this, too, had been learnt. I\nnext taught her which was her right paw--and she very soon knew the\ndifference. Indeed, Ulse seemed to think it all great fun, and was\nhugely delighted at the little rewards she earned. My interest, too,\nhad now been aroused, and I repeated the numerals to her from 1 up to\n5, and got her to understand \"look here!\" and \"attention!\" Though she\nwas on the whole more fidgety than Lola had been, yet would she\nsometimes sit quite still, intent on watching my hand, but the least\nmovement in the room would start her little head off twisting to and\nfro to every side. One day I took her paw, saying: \"Now you must learn\nto rap! And placing the little pad on the palm of my hand, I first\ncounted two with it, and then continued up to 5; then I held my hand\nout to her and said: \"Ulse, rap 2!\" and she actually did! I was\ndelighted. I should add that before Ulse had learnt to \"give a paw,\"\nshe had already, of herself, shown inclinations to \"rap,\" for she would\nhold up her paw--gesticulating with it in the air! These vague\n\"pawings,\" moreover, were distinctly the movements of _rapping_,\nalthough she, of course, did not know their meaning at the time. And so\nthe ground was laid for further work, during the short time I had to\nspare for her--as well as the limited period she was yet to remain with\nme.\n\nThere can be no doubt but that heredity plays a great role in these\ncases; her quick responsiveness bore witness to this, while, in\naddition, Lola evidently regarded her as the \"flower of her flock,\" for\nshe had always singled Ulse out for special attentions, generally\nretiring with her alone to a distant part of the barn. The question is\nwhether Lola may not have given her some instruction, for, to some\nremark of mine, she had once replied: \"Teaching Ulse!\" Yet, for my\npart, I feel doubtful whether animals do transmit to others of their\nkind the things taught them by human beings. However, this may be, Ulse\nseemed predestined, so to speak, to learn to count and spell, mastering\nthe numbers up to _five_ in a fabulously short time. Moreover, she\n_rapped_ better than Lola, or, rather, quite as well as Lola had\ndone when in her very best days, raising her small paw high, and then\nbringing it down on my hand with a decided, though rather slow, beat.\nUlse was also soon able to signify \"yes\" by two raps, and \"no\" by\nthree, but I had to keep my questions within a very narrow limit, for\nher intercourse was of too short a duration to enable her to acquire a\nlengthy or varied vocabulary. Still, we practised 2 x 1, 2 x 2, 3 x 2,\nand her answers were always excellent, as long as nothing else was\ngoing on to excite or distract her.\n\nThe amusing thing was that she loved doing it so that the little paw\nwould be up in mid-air as soon as ever she saw me, as much as to show\nthat she was quite ready for work. This was doubtless due to the very\nquiet existence she had led before coming indoors, and also perhaps to\nthe little favours and tit-bits she had learnt to associate with her\nnew accomplishments. Indeed, until these had blossomed out, her innate\ncleverness and brightness had gone almost unnoticed.\n\nWhen I had assured myself that she fully comprehended the rapping, I\nendeavoured to teach her to rap on a board, instead of on my hand, a\nthing I had never been able to get Lola to agree to. Indeed, I had had\nto relinquish any hope of it, in the case of the older dog; whether it\nwas that the scratching of her toe-nails on the board irritated her or\nwhat, I do not know, but it practically stopped her working. My only\nreason for trying to introduce this method at all had been to put an\nend to the suggestions sometimes put forward by sceptical persons that\nI might be \"helping her with my hand!\" Anyway, the ease with which Ulse\ntook to rapping on the board, and the excellent work she did by that\nmethod should have proved a sufficient reply to all doubters, and I had\nbeen full of hope that her gifts would, in time, have been further\ndeveloped by her new mistress, yet it was to be otherwise. Ulse was to\nhave gone to her new home in Meran (in the Tyrol), but the regulations\nas to travel obtaining during war-time prohibited this, so I placed her\nunder the temporary charge of a young lady, and while there she\nunfortunately died of mange.\n\n\n\n\nLAST WORDS\n\n\nEverything that I have so far experienced or even heard of concerning\ndogs, I have attempted to set down here, and to do so has taken some\nfourteen months of close work. I have further added certain\nobservations dating from an earlier period. It is my full intention to\ncontinue this work of experimentation, and should be glad if I might\nhope that what I have communicated in these pages may raise a desire on\nthe part of some of my readers to embark on similar work in reference\nto other animals; for, in so difficult a field of discovery it can only\nbe after much independent spadework has been done that the \"complete\nform\" we are groping after will be laid bare. Up to the present it may\nbe thought that little of really practical value has been proved, and\nto some this may suggest that the work is therefore superfluous. But,\ndo we study astronomy for mere _practical_ reasons? Does the seeker in\nthis field of science imagine that he is going to derive _practical_\nresults for us, _in the immediate future_, from his study of the\nheavens? It is for purely _ideal_ reasons--and in order to give seeking\nhumanity that which is indeed theirs, that we humans send forth our\nthoughts, exploring every region of the world--be this \"of use\" or not!\nAnd in thus probing the depths of our own subject do we not come up\nagainst those weightier questions which are of Cosmic importance? Does\nnot Nature here fix man's eye with her own gaze--granting him new\nriches? For rich, indeed, is this gift that proves to him that not he\nalone is dowered with a soul[25]--nor dwelling in a world destitute\nof thought, nay--that his companion-beings along life's highway are\nwell able to respond to and comprehend all his labour, his love, and\nhis care for them. And above all, should it teach him to more clearly\napprehend them--doing so in the spirit of a know-er and with a kindly\nsympathy begotten of that knowledge. For _To Know_--_to Understand_--means\nto give to each its rights! And, in this matter, have we to concede so\nmuch to our higher animals? The simplest form of thought contents them;\nthe childlike adapting itself to animal uses; and, from such \"small\nbeginnings\" has not our own primeval soul--the best that is within\nus--risen to higher glory, to become a moulder and organizer of\nthought--even of creative ideas? Therefore, from all that wealth with\nwhich we are dowered we may well allow this tiny morsel to our animal\nfriends--they will assuredly infringe no further upon our rights, for,\nafter all, they are dumb, and cannot even utter the small store of\nthoughts they may learn to express; they can only look at us--but, oh!\nhow well they can do _that_--it needs no more than our eyes to tell us!\nAnd--if we review the entire animal kingdom, are not these _higher\nanimals_ closely akin to us, both in bodily structure as also in all\nthat appertains to their functional activities? So near, indeed, do\nthey approach us in the degree of evolution that for that very reason\nit would seem natural to attribute to them some rudiments of\nthought--some latent abilities; but the greatest importance of all\nwould seem to lie in the Cosmic aspect of this question! If it _does_\n\"fit in\" ought we, then, to dismiss it? Is it not the same thing with\nall subjects that open up a new point of view? Yet may those for whom\nsuch new investigations present no \"disturbing elements\"--those for\nwhom, on the contrary, it chimes with their own desire--extend their\nhand and gratefully accept this gift from Nature--repaying her with\nreverence and with love. May this new science serve to enrich our ever\nincreasing knowledge! The work will indeed mean a long struggle against\nthe conservative elements, and all those accepted rules of procedure;\nevery weapon will be turned against us, but, be this as it may, time\nwill in its due course show the truth to be on our side, for ONLY WHAT\nIS TRUE SURVIVES.\n\n      [25] See the Song of Solomon.\n\n\n\n\nCONCLUSION\n\n_By Professor H. F. Ziegler_\n\n\nThe most important contribution that had been made to the study of\nAnimal Psychology consists in the new \"Alphabet of Raps,\" which enables\ndumb creatures to give reasonable expression to their thoughts, and\nprovides us at the same time with the means of gaining some insight\ninto their thinking and feeling. This method owes nothing to scientific\ninvestigators, yet may these gladly acknowledge the great progress thus\nindicated, rather than reject it with impatience and distrust. To\nproudly decline anything to do with it would indeed be out of place:\nrather is it careful study and independent confirmation--a personal\napplication of this new method--that is here most needed. The inventor\nof this \"Rapping and Spelling Method\" was the late Wilhelm von Osten,\nin Berlin, reference to whom has been made in the opening chapter of\nthis book. But the specialists refused to recognize his labours--they\ndestroyed his position by their erroneous findings and their\ndisapprobation--the campaign carried on against von Osten being by no\nmeans free from a spirit of unfairness.[26]\n\n      [26] I would here refer the reader to the references I made to\n      the work issued by Pfungst; they may be found in \"The Animal\n      Soul\" (Reports of new observations made with respect to horses\n      and dogs), 2nd ed. (W. Jung) 1916, p. 38.\n\nIt was Karl Krall who took up and continued the work, improving on the\noriginal method and finally making known the most astounding results\nwhich he himself had succeeded in obtaining with his horses. These\naccounts may be read in detail in Krall's great book, a work the\npublication of which has been of immeasurable importance in the history\nof animal psychology.[27] Any reader of unbiased opinion will be bound\nto acknowledge the value of this new method, and the remarkable results\nachieved in the case of Krall's horses have been equally successfully\napplied when working with dogs. Frau Dr. Moekel of Mannheim evolved an\nindependent rapping method of her own, which admitted of the\npossibilities for _counting_. This lady, however, soon became aware\nthat a similar method had already been invented and applied by Herr von\nOsten, and she then enlarged on her own efforts so as to include the\nspelling method above mentioned. The feats of her dog Rolf were so\nremarkable as to arouse as much surprise in his mistress as in anyone\nelse present. Frau Dr. Moekel was exceedingly careful to note down\neverything that could serve as evidence, and in spite of her long and\nserious illness was yet able, by dint of great exertion, to complete\nher MS. She died in 1915, and her book, which could not be published\nduring the war, has only recently become available to the public. It is\ngratifying to be able to welcome the appearance of another little book\non the same subject, the one now before us, written by Fraeulein Henny\nKindermann; this volume having also suffered postponement, owing to the\nwar. This lady taught her dog on independent methods of her own,\ndevoting much loving and conscientious care to the work and, in a\ngeneral way, the results have been much the same as those obtained from\nRolf, although, in the matter of detail, there is much that is new;\nindeed, many of the observations set down by this investigator raise\nquestions of fascinating interest. Here, again, the author has been\nable to improve on the method as previously applied by others; teaching\nthe dog to rap tens and units with different paws, as had been done by\nKrall's horses, and also introducing a better method of spelling by\nteaching the proper value of the consonants.[28] Fraeulein Kindermann\nfurther applied her tests systematically in order to solve certain\nproblems, proving the animal's ability to the full extent in one\nparticular subject at a time. It is indeed the experience thus gained\nwhich gives to this book its special value, even though all the\nproblems submitted may not have been fully solved. I would here draw\nattention to the fact that the author's dog invariably replies in \"High\nGerman,\" whereas Rolf of Mannheim employs the dialect of the Pfalz--and\nthe Stuttgart dog, Sepp, expresses his views in Suabian; indeed, each\ndog naturally learns the \"form of speech\" he hears in his own locality.\nThe results that have come under notice seem at times so extraordinary\nthat doubts may arise as to the authenticity of what has here been set\ndown; yet should we be careful not to reject new evidence because it\nhappens to exceed all we have hitherto known or experienced. For this\nis a case of exploring new ground, ingress to which has now become\npossible owing to an entirely new method, and none should take upon\nthemselves to decide in advance what may, or may not be, found possible\nwithin this new domain. Careful examination of all evidence put forward\nis desirable, yet can this be undertaken only by such persons as are\nthemselves in the possession of an intelligent dog, one to which they\ncan apply the test of similar instruction. It should be needless to say\nthat the experimenter must abstain from anything in the nature of a\nsign given to the animal. It is a far easier matter to train an animal\nin _that_ way than to bring out the latent possibilities attaching\nto its understanding by training it so as to state its own thoughts.\nThe proof of the genuineness of such \"utterances\" on the part of the\ndog lies in the fact that it so often gives an entirely different reply\nto that which is expected of it--it may even say something that is\nquite unknown to the person carrying out the experiment. Many such\nexamples will be found in this book, as well as in that of Frau Dr.\nMoekel, while many more could be furnished by the owners of other\n\"Spelling Dogs.\" Indeed, the more reckoning and spelling dogs there are\nthe sooner will the value of this new method become generally\nrecognized and the easier will it be to rid the truth of any errors\nthat may still obscure it. Here in Stuttgart my Lectures delivered on\nthe subject have so far led to the training of four dogs in counting as\nwell as spelling, this having been done with best results. In addition\nto these, I myself have a dog, \"Ava,\" by name a daughter of Lola, who\nis already proficient in both accomplishments. There is nothing\nmysterious about this new animal psychology that has been brought into\nevidence by the method here explained, it is no secret, but at the\nservice of all who care to explore what is entirely free ground--not\nreserved for the learned alone, but at the disposal of any\nanimal-lover, if he will but co-operate in a spirit of patience and\ndevotion, and is endowed with the particular \"gift\" for teaching an\nanimal. The truth under discussion here is not likely to be find\nelucidation in the study of the learned man--rather will it be the\nresult of the collective, convergent and corresponding evidence brought\ntogether by the labours of many a patient investigator.\n\nSTUTTGART\n\n_September_, 1919\n\n      [27] Karl Krall, \"Denkende Tiere, Beitraege zur Tierseelenkunde,\n      auf Grund eigener Versuche,\" Leipzig, Engelmann, 1912.\n\n      [28] Rolf could only rap with one paw owing to the other fore-paw\n      having been injured; he generally leaves out the vowels, these\n      being already contained within the consonants. This habit gives\n      rise to a somewhat curious form of writing.\n\n\n    NOTE\n\n    There are in all now twelve dogs known to communicate by means of\n    \"raps.\" The experiences I have had with my own dog have been\n    reported by me in the article entitled \"Respecting a Dog's Memory,\"\n    and appeared in the \"Zoologischen Anzeiger,\" 1919, No. 11-13. The\n    name of my dog \"Awa\" is quite intentionally put together, as Lola\n    has herself \"invented\" all the names given to her progeny.\n\n\n\n\n\"THINKING\" ANIMALS\n\nA CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPMENTS FROM 1914 TO 1919\n\n\nBY\n\nDR. WILLIAM MACKENZIE\n\nOF GENOA\n\n\n[Translated from the Italian with the omission of\n\nI. An Introductory Section, and\nII. A Section giving the Story of \"Lola.\"]\n\n\nIII. THE HYPOTHESIS OF INTELLIGENCE IN ANIMALS\n\nAssuming, as I have done, and as I think I must do, that we have not\nhere to do with a trick or fraud, we seem to be dreaming, or to be\nreading the account of a dream. Those poor horses of Elberfeld, so\ngreatly extolled and so much discussed in their day, are not in the\nsame field with Lola. And yet I am convinced that it is not a dream. It\nis another kind of psychological reality, but it is a reality probably\ntoo complex to be reduced to a single formula. Let us then try to face\nthe facts.\n\nAs to the \"intelligent\" character of the manifestations, there is no\npossible doubt, even though we put on one side for the present the\narithmetical phenomena, which perhaps must be treated from a particular\nstandpoint, as I shall explain. The question before us is therefore a\ndilemma. Is there intelligence in the dog, or is the intelligence in\nothers?\n\nIf, by intelligence in this case we mean the possibility of the animal\nunder observation giving replies to questions with, in the human sense,\nactual understanding of the import of such replies, as well as the\npossibility of the animal, a dog two years old, being able after a\nmaximum of fifteen hours' lessons to read, write and count, _and know\nwhat it is learning_; if that is what is meant by intelligence in this\ncase, I must say that I do not believe in it, and that I feel compelled\nfor scientific reasons to examine every other hypothesis before having\nrecourse to this one.\n\nAnd again, \"Intelligence in others\"? This may be so, but it is not\nnecessary to suppose that the intelligence is in others alone. I mean\nthat a few of the manifestations may within narrow limits probably be\nrightly attributed to the intelligence of the animal, (but, I repeat,\nthe arithmetical facts must be considered by themselves).\n\nIf all the manifestations were to be attributed to the intelligence of\nothers and none to the animal, we should have to accept the supposition\nof an absolutely _mechanical_ automatism in the animal itself of the\ntype suggested by Neumann (8)[29] as the result of his experiments with\nRolf, when, for instance, the dog mechanically kept on tapping an\nunlimited number of times on the cardboard, which Neumann held out to\nit without, as far as possible, moving it.\n\n      [29] NOTE.--The numbers in the text refer to the Bibliography at\n      the end.\n\n    This negative result of Neumann's is capable of various possible\n    explanations, and in no way gives any clear indication (just\n    because it is negative) as to how a positive result is at all\n    possible; that is, we cannot conclude from it any better than\n    before, whether the apparently \"mechanical\" behaviour of the animal\n    was intentional, and therefore whether the animal itself could or\n    could not have behaved otherwise; whether, given the impossibility\n    of the animal behaving differently, we should say that this\n    impossibility was absolute or only happened to occur on this\n    occasion; whether perchance the action of some psychical factor\n    unknown to Neumann between the animal and himself may not have been\n    omitted; and whether such factor was not in operation when the\n    animal was working with its late mistress, etc., etc. In this\n    connexion I feel it incumbent upon me to recall that I myself saw\n    Rolf on two or three occasions behave in this same apparently\n    mechanical way with his mistress (Mrs. Moekel) (II), whose\n    annoyance thereat seemed so real that I felt certain that it was\n    not feigned. From Neumann's point of view this would be\n    incomprehensible--since he makes use of the argument from the\n    supposed absolute automatism under the impression that it had taken\n    place in Rolf with _him_, Neumann, alone, _but not_ with the\n    Moekels. Here, then, it is clear that the intelligence is, or at\n    least that it is also, \"in others.\"\n\nBut whatever value we may attach to Neumann's experiment, it appears to\nme sufficiently clear that the supposition of an absolutely mechanically\npassive process in the animal will not hold as a sufficient explanation\nof the _whole_ of the facts related by Miss Kindermann, nor will it\nhold with regard to what science certainly seems to me to be compelled\nto admit in the case of the Elberfeld horses, which (as is known)\n\"worked\" magnificently without contact with anyone, tapping their\nreplies on a board, completely isolated on the ground, and even when\nall alone in their stable with the one door tightly closed and all the\nspectators outside. The spectators heard and observed the rapped\nanswers of the horses (for example, to written questions) through a\nlittle glass window. Neither will it hold with regard to the many\nexperiments made, some also by myself, by means of requests, pictures,\nquestions, presented to the horses in such a way as to be unknown to\n_everyone_, including the experimenter. Besides, the animals at times\ngave spontaneous communications. This Assagioli and I, and many others,\nhave observed even without the presence of Krall and of members of the\nMoekel family. Miss Kindermann also gives some of Lola's replies tapped\non the arm of a friend of the authoress, although the latter held out\nas usual her own hand to the dog.\n\nTherefore, there must be some \"intelligence\" in the animal, as\neverything cannot come from outside it in these experiments. Probably\nthis intelligence is not human in quality, but nevertheless not quite\nrudimentary, and is such as we may imagine without too much effort to\nexist in domestic animals which by many signs often give us proof that\nthey understand at least in part what is taking place around and within\nus. That such an intelligence could very probably be educated, always\nwithin prehuman limits or in a lesser degree than in human infancy,\ndoes not on the whole seem to me so contradictory to our actual\npsychological knowledge: since we may very well suppose that the animal\nunder examination may make use of its proper faculties, as far as lies\nin its power, to profit by the situation for the purpose of\naccomplishing that which is required of it, under the stimulus of\nallurements or threats. (It may even be rather assumed that the\nexercise of its proper faculties, which I regard as \"intelligent,\" may\nprocure for the animal a certain degree of pleasure.) All this is apart\nfrom the question of the arithmetical phenomena which, as I have\nalready said, deserve separate consideration.\n\nUpon the facts as now established the knowledge of numbers seems to be\nthe basis of any educability in animals. And this is perhaps the first\nand most important discovery in the \"new zoopsychology.\"\n\n    In their search for others things, Von Osten, Krall, and the\n    Moekels have brought out clearly among various other facts, without\n    exactly accounting for it, the fundamental fact of the existence in\n    the animal of a psychic substratum predisposed in some manner to\n    arithmetic. I say \"in some manner,\" and by that I do not wish to\n    prejudge any particular view of the argument; and above all I do\n    not make of this predisposition or mathematical permeability, a\n    criterion of intelligence. I do not forget either the mentally\n    deficient or the prodigies among child calculators, etc. But\n    likewise I cannot forget another thing: that all organisms are\n    already throughout permeated with mathematics, and that the more we\n    descend the scale, from man down to the most \"simple\" biological\n    fact, the more nearly we approach to physics, which is nothing but\n    mathematics.\n\n    I have not the space here to digress on the intermediate gradations.\n    Besides, I have already done so, in part at least, elsewhere. But I\n    wish to recall the curious coincidence that the mathematical\n    achievements of the Elberfeld horses were much more brilliant and\n    much more prodigious than those of the dogs which have up to now\n    been experimented on. And horses in the phylo-genetic line are more\n    ancient than dogs: they are lower in the zoologic scale. Much lower\n    still, i.e. among the Arthropoda, occur many other mathematical\n    wonders. I only mention in a cursory way the logarithmic spiral of\n    the spider's web, the precise curves realized without instruments\n    of any kind by the Coleoptera and Hymenoptera in cutting leaves,\n    the stereometry of the aphides. Then, as it were, at the bottom of\n    the scale (if one may still speak of a descent and a bottom) the\n    marvellous plancton filters of the Appendiculata; the geometrical\n    spots of the Amoebae; the cases of perfect forms of so many other\n    Protozoa; and, finally, think of the constructive technic of the\n    static organs, or of those of movement either in man or animals or\n    plants; think of the complex mathematics of the mitosi, or of any\n    cell proceeding to its own indirect division.\n\n    It seems to me clear that the mathematical faculty--assuming\n    always, let it be understood, that it may give rise to more or less\n    conscious phenomena in the biological subject--may be amongst the\n    most natural of imaginable causes, and that even the smallest\n    amount of consciousness may help this existing capacity in the\n    animal to express itself. That we are concerned with an expression\n    by raps or not, does not seem to me as important as a proper\n    estimation of the importance of the central fact constituted by\n    this mathematical capacity.\n\nFrom this central fact, proved over and over again without any possible\ndoubt to be true of the \"thinking\" animals, there have been developed\ntwo distinct groups of consequences: (1) the prodigious mathematical\nperformances occurring as by magic among the Elberfeld horses at a\ncertain point of their \"education\": (2) the apparent manifestations of\nthought through the typtology or rapping out of words, culminating in\nthe \"philosophic\" achievements of Rolf and Lola.\n\nFor the reasons just mentioned the first group of consequences seems to\nme to admit largely of biological (i.e. biopsychical) explanation;\nhowever, anything which eventually does not fit into the biological\nexplanation may be made to enter without any effort into the second\nmethod of explanation which, in view of the facts, it seems to me that\nwe must adopt for the second of the two groups of consequences above\nreferred to.\n\nThat mathematics can be \"lived\" rather than \"known\"--or, if any one\nprefers the term, \"realized\"--by an organism which is without any\npsychical accompaniment whatever of the human type, is a fact which I\nfind credible. But when Rolf speaks to me of the origin of the soul, or\nmakes up poetry; when Lola complains to me of honour lost, etc., the\nthing is not credible to me in any way except by paying attention to\nnothing except the feeling, which is so difficult to avoid, that what\nis here speaking to me, versifying and complaining, is a psychical\n\"quid,\" absolutely human and only human; a \"quid\" which therefore is\n(after all) not the animal's, although manifested in some way through\nit. The difficulty naturally consists in deciding precisely how this\nhappens. But it does not seem to me altogether impossible to arrive at\na proper hypothesis.\n\nI have already said that we must discard, because of its inability to\nexplain a great part of the facts, the most easy and simple\nhypothesis--that of some mechanical signal (e.g. by means of a supposed\npressure of the hand under the cardboard, or by the hand itself which\nis held out to the animal, in the case of the dogs which have so far\nbeen experimented with). Here we also have to remember the proposition\nlaid down by Miss Kindermann herself that \"She did not wish to let\nherself be carried away by sentiment,\" and that she would seek all\npossible proofs which were good logically. Having excluded the\nhypothesis of deceit, it is a further proof of the sheer impotency of\nthe theory of signals, when regard is had to the available amount of\nthe material observed and recorded in the authoress, if we ask how is\nit possible to imagine that she (knowing very well, as she says, the\nsuspicion resting on the method) in a year or more of work with Lola\nshould not herself have perceived that she herself had been producing\nby mechanical means the rapped answers of her pupil?\n\nIn my opinion the answer is that the authoress was not only not aware\nof, but _could not_ in the least have been aware of, the action that\nmay have passed from herself to the dog so as to bring about the\nrapping of the answers; and that on the other hand it is not a question\nat all of thinking of a simple mechanical operation of the kind\nmentioned above, because in the presumed action of the authoress on the\ndog there is no need to have recourse to such a crude hypothesis (as\nsurely there was no similar action of Krall's on his horses, especially\nwhen they were separated from him). I maintain, in fact, that in\nprinciple, even without any contact by hand, we may still presume that\nall the \"wonders\" obtained by Miss Kindermann are obtainable, taking,\nof course, into account the peculiar endowments of the animal we are\ndealing with. For if there be any automatism (and there is surely a\ngood dose of it), it is certainly not a question of a mechanical\nautomatism (of the type of Neumann's), but quite certainly of a true\nand proper _psychic automatism_; a very different thing, and without\ndoubt much more complex.\n\nIn all probability the first condition for the occurrence of genuine\nphenomena similar to those attributed to \"thinking\" animals must be a\nvery particular psychic relationship between the animal and his master.\nAnd such a relation, although with reluctance, I am compelled to call\nof the mediumistic type.\n\nMy reluctance is due in part to the very unhappy etymology of the term,\nderived from the famous word \"medium,\" so unscientific both in its\norigin and in the meaning which some even now wish to associate with\nit. But even after having freed it from any \"spiritistic\" meaning, the\nterm still leaves me reluctant; for I cannot hide from myself the\nweakness of a hypothesis which, in order to explain (only in part) one\nenigmatical fact (in this case, that of \"thinking animals\"), must have\nrecourse to another unsolved enigma (in this case that of the\n\"mediumistic phenomena\").\n\nHowever, it will already be something if the two problems are\neventually merged together and so become a single problem; but it is\nnot my object to explain any psychical facts themselves, whatever they\nmay be, under which the phenomena of Lola and others of a similar\nnature may be eventually classified. It will be sufficient for me at\npresent to group the performances of the animals, if possible, with\nsomething better known. And \"mediumistic\" facts, extrinsically at\nleast, are certainly better known. I refer therefore to them as I find\nthem described in the psychology called supernormal; because, from\nforce of circumstances I am compelled to recognize that it is within\nthis psychology that I must now continue the discussion.\n\n\nIV. MEDIUMISTIC \"RAPPORT\" AND TELEPATHY\n\nThe hypothesis of a psychic automatism of a mediumistic type, as a\nconcomitant phenomenon, at least, in experiments of the \"new\nzoopsychology,\" offers us a point of support for a possible\ninterpretation of the strange uncertainty and irregularity of the\nsuccesses and failures of different observers and different animals.\n\n    With Krall two of his horses gave magnificent results; two others\n    negative results. In the same way, with the same dogs some\n    experimenters obtain wonders, others obtain nothing.... We may\n    therefore assume that in order to obtain favourable results there\n    must be a proper accord or reciprocal psychic concordance between\n    the animal and the person making the experiment, precisely as\n    happens with mediumistic phenomena.\n\n    Moreover, this hypothesis in the same way helps us to an\n    interpretation of the fact that the same animal, with the same\n    investigator, gives good results in some matters, poor or no result\n    in others. Taking, however, due account of the central mathematical\n    phenomena, on which, as it seems to me, the whole edifice is\n    superposed, there remains a great variety of marked psychical\n    idiosyncrasies in the various cases. One of the animals is\n    decidedly a calculator; another likes to read or to explain\n    figures; another detests reading but willingly taps out\n    \"spontaneous communications.\"\n\n    Without possessing much intrinsic probative value of its own, it is\n    certain that all this fits in very badly with the supposition of a\n    purely mechanical automatism operated by the person making the\n    experiments. And on the other hand it bears a close analogy to the\n    mediumistic \"specialities\"; that is, to the well-known fact that\n    one \"medium,\" for instance, is good for \"physical effects\" (i.e.\n    gives rise around it to dynamic phenomena), but is not good for\n    \"psychography\"; or produces \"incarnations\" but not \"apports,\" etc.\n    In the same way, typtology or rapping, more or less systematic,\n    seems a fundamental gift, common to all the various kinds of\n    \"mediums.\" And the fact is perhaps of a certain value that\n    precisely the same thing is true of \"thinking\" animals; although we\n    must always remember that an analogous relation may only be\n    apparent or extrinsic. Besides, the tone also of the\n    \"communications\" in the two fields seems to me very much akin. I\n    allude to the curious, angular, enigmatic, spasmodic, often playful\n    and bantering communications, with frequent \"unexpected replies\"\n    and philosophic platitudes. I find all these in Lola, and I\n    remember similar stories of Rolf and of the horses, giving me an\n    impression very like that which I get from the accounts of\n    mediumistic seances \"with intellectual effects.\"\n\nPremising all this, we may suppose that a peculiar psychic concordance,\nwhich failing a better term might be called mediumistic, exists between\nLola and her mistress. The mistress then in some way will have\n\"communicated\" through the dog the substance of her psychic self\n(perhaps with eventual autonomous additions from the canine or other\npsychic entity); all this happening, we must suppose, in a subliminal\nway, with partial psychical disassociation on the part of the\nauthoress, if not also probably on the part of Lola, about which I am\nquite certain (and in this I agree with Neumann) that it absolutely\ndoes not understand anything or know anything of almost all the\nmanifestations of thought which it exhibits.\n\nThere remain the questions (if the possibility of such duplicate\nmediumistic phenomena is admitted _a priori_ to be possible) as to the\npoint at which the normal relationship between a human person and an\nanimal passes over into this supernormal one; and, finally, as to what\nparticular known facts in the case of Lola, besides the rather too\ngeneral analogies already mentioned, speak in favour of this\nhypothesis.\n\nInto the mediumistic endowment of the investigator it seems to me\nuseless to inquire since _a priori_ many persons, so it seems, are more\nor less strikingly endowed, and the conditions which determine results\nare not sufficiently known. At the most there exist some indications--e.g.\nin Morselli's masterly work (2)--of the existence of some concordances\nbetween the phenomenology of mediumism and hysterical, hysteroid, or at\nleast \"sensitive\" temperaments. And I believe that--with the help of\ntheir own publications, properly analysed--it would not be too\ndifficult to attribute one or the other of such physio-psychic\nvarieties to those persons who have up to the present obtained the best\nresults with \"thinking animals.\"\n\nMore interesting appears to me the investigation of the question\nwhether animals themselves have already given any clear proof of being\nable to be \"sensitive\" in the mediumistic sense. And I must say that\nsuch a proof seems to have almost been reached.\n\n    I may refer on this subject to the exhaustive monograph published\n    in 1905 by Bozzano (1) and written with the special competency and\n    clearness that distinguish the well-known Genoese psychist.\n\n    Bozzano at that time was necessarily ignorant of the \"thinking\"\n    animals, for it was only afterwards that they came to notice. But\n    there were other authors who introduced the possibility (or the\n    necessity) of a supernormal relationship in order to explain the\n    Elberfeld facts, as soon as they were known. Perhaps the first in\n    chronological order was De Vesme, who published in 1912 an\n    interesting article in that sense (3), showing the many analogies\n    between the phenomena of Elberfeld and mediumistic phenomena\n    generally, e.g. the typtological particularities; the wrong\n    orthography (\"Firaz\" tapped by the horse to express its own name\n    \"Zariff,\" \"Dref\" instead of \"Ferd,\" etc.); solutions of difficult\n    problems and invincible resistance to simple inquiries; immediate\n    promptitude of correct replies to complicated mathematical\n    problems, etc.\n\n    A similar work was Maeterlinck's, written in 1909 for a German\n    review, and then transformed into a long and interesting chapter of\n    the well-known volume, \"L'hote Inconnu\" (10).\n\n    Then in 1914 was published a book by E. G. Sanford (5) containing\n    some useful comparisons between \"thinking\" animals and mediumistic\n    psychology.\n\n    In Italy there were indications in the same sense, in the work of\n    Stefani (1913), Professor Siciliani (1914), and others. But the\n    subject was but little followed up.\n\nEven psychologists by profession seemed for a time to be willing to\naccept the hypothesis of some \"telepathic\" transmission of thought from\nthe investigators to the Elberfeld horses.\n\n    Already Claparede (1912) had been forced to refer to this, although\n    he refused, so to speak, to discuss the matter; then G. C. Ferrari,\n    and F. Pulle, in an interesting account (4) relate how the horse\n    taken by them for instruction sometimes guessed the numbers that\n    they were proposing to them, and rapped out the answers before\n    being asked to do so.\n\nWhatever may be the fate of the telepathic hypothesis, it may not be\namiss to remind the reader that it undoubtedly is very closely\nconnected with the mediumistic. The distinction between them is not\nalways easy; besides, both may exist together side by side.\n\n\"Telepathy,\" so called, (a term not less unfortunate than that of\n\"medium\" and its derivatives), or, better, the transmission of thought,\nis (shortly put) the hypothesis that at a certain moment an agent\ntransmits, and a receiver perceives, some definite mental image or\nstate of mind. The transmission may be more or less willed (i.e.\nconscious) on the part of the agent; on the part of the receiver,\nhowever, the fact of the transmission always remains unconscious, but\nthe psychical elements perceived bring about a reaction in\nconsciousness and the receiver knows what he is doing, or at any rate\nmay do so, at the moment of the occurrence. Shortly stated, it may be\nregarded as a kind of suggestion, \"a distance,\" with sometimes\nimmediate and sometimes delayed effect; a kind of posthypnotic\nperformances of a suggestion without the intervention of hypnotism (or,\nperhaps, with a partial subhypnotic state?), the receiver of the\nsuggestion not receiving it in the form of acoustic vibrations or in\nany way by means of one of the ordinary senses.\n\nMediumistic phenomena on the other hand require for their explanation\nthe possibility of a much more direct, more profound and more immediate\nrelationship between the several minds taking part in them. One of\nthese minds--more or less disassociated--might become the instrument of\nanother--even of several others--although still itself in a state of\nmore or less complete disassociation, and always remaining altogether\nunconscious of its relationship to the other. One of the minds might\ntherefore be an agent, another a recipient, or even several of them\nsimultaneously might join together to produce the phenomena, the\nsubliminal nature of the relationship remaining fixed. The actors would\nin this way, for ever, all of them without exception, be absolutely\nunaware that they were the actors. It might also be the case that the\nrecipient through whom the phenomena are produced (i.e. the \"medium,\"\nor in our case the animal experimented on) would not be conscious at\nall of the resulting action. With human \"mediums\" we should find in\nsuch cases a more or less advanced state of trance or ecstasy. And with\nregard to animals, I remember the opinions of Ochorowicz and\nothers--which were preceded, however, long ago by a similar opinion of\nCuvier--according to which the consciousness of animals in an awakened\nstate would correspond fairly closely to the consciousness of man in a\nhypnotic state.\n\nIf what has been said above is at all correct, it would seem as if the\nwalls separating various minds one from another all of a sudden are\nopened wide, and by a partial interpenetration of one mind by the other\nthe several minds join together to produce by mutual determination\nautomatic action. And it is in these special psychical states that\n\"supernormal\" phenomena, viz., psychography, clairvoyance,\nclairaudience, etc., occur.\n\nNow, although all this is to move in a very uncertain ambit, harassed\nby a multitude of diverse and vain dilettantisms and mysticisms, and\nonly too frequently by fraud, it is not any longer possible nowadays to\ndeny that facts, objectively known, compel the positive scientist to\nhave recourse to some such suppositions. Also without making the\n\"subliminal,\" with Myers, a kind of \"deus ex machina\" in the world, it\nis certain that mediumistic phenomena of the kind mentioned are\nhenceforth to be considered as a subject of study for an open-minded\npsychology. I may refer in support of this view, among others, to the\npowerful work of Morselli. And to return to the \"thinking\" animals, we\nfind that the mediumistic hypothesis, however shifty it may seem, is a\nbetter explanation than the telepathic hypothesis--which has already\nitself become rather more systematized in modern psychology.\n\n    After his visits to Elberfeld, Claparede, as I said, had found it\n    difficult to treat as valid the telepathic hypothesis when applied\n    to Krall's horses. What, indeed, had been \"transmitted\" to them?\n    Numbers? Words? Single letters? (or orders to stop the foot at the\n    right time?) It must be remembered that the horses were tapping\n    their answers by using a sort of stenography, that usually left out\n    the vowels: that besides, although the words could be recognized in\n    the most certain manner, the spelling was most irregular, and, as I\n    have already pointed out, sometimes reversed. Further, as to the\n    words themselves, most infantile phrases were used, certainly such\n    as no adult would have suggested. Was it suggestion then from one\n    unconscious to another? But this is to fall back upon a supposition\n    of the \"mediumistic\" type, and takes no count of the cases of\n    replies to questions which were unknown to everybody present, and\n    brings us to the single dilemma: either there is intelligence in\n    the human sense in the animal, or a relationship of the mediumistic\n    type above described between the several minds concerned.\n\n    As to the interesting observations reported by Ferrari and Pulle,\n    it seems to me opportune to quote here some extracts from the first\n    of these distinguished authors.\n\n    \"This seance was particularly interesting, because I find it\n    recorded in my notes that a fact was verified three times\n    consecutively, which had occurred sporadically more than once\n    before, and had been observed and noted by us and various other\n    witnesses.\n\n    \"It consisted in this: While I was putting in the box the number of\n    balls which I had intended the horse to read, the horse, which\n    often could not even have seen the number of balls, because I\n    covered them partly with my head and hands, tapped out the correct\n    number.\n\n    \"The same thing happened when I took in one hand a card, the signs\n    on which it could only have read with difficulty, the light being\n    rather bad. The most curious thing about it was that the taps were\n    then made upon the whole more rapidly and less strongly than usual;\n    and that several times later on the horse gave the same number\n    itself with some little difficulty.\n\n    \"It is also curious that it should have repeated the performance,\n    seeing that it was only once rewarded for it, and that, because it\n    was agreed that it had done its reading well. I must add that the\n    person who assisted me told me that generally, even when it was\n    giving correctly the number decided on, it hardly looked to see how\n    I was placing the balls in the box....\n\n    \"Once when I was arranging three balls, because some one standing\n    behind the horse had made me the sign 3, the horse tapped its three\n    beats behind my shoulders while stretching out its neck by my side\n    in order to try to take a salad leaf, thus showing that it was\n    taking very little interest in the sign which I held out to it and\n    in the taps which it was making.\n\n    \"Certainly, this time at least, the animal seemed to perform an\n    automatic action, and it seemed to me that we had guessed\n    subconsciously what the horse intended to do. This may appear a\n    crooked hypothesis, but it is less difficult for me than to think\n    that the horse had read in my mind the number which I had there. It\n    certainly did nothing on most occasions to upset the fairly clear\n    and precise impression that it was obeying some more or less\n    complex determinism.\"\n\nIt seems to me difficult to avoid the impression that what has just\nbeen stated does not reveal a simple telepathic relationship but\nsomething rather more deep. The want of interest by the animal in its\nbehaviour is for me symptomatic, and agrees perfectly well with the\nsensation of the observer that he also had to obey some obscure\ndeterminism. I see here another case of a combined psychical (partial)\noperation of a \"mediumistic\" kind; and this hypothesis makes very\nplausible the other no less impressive hypothesis of the observer that\nhis mind was reading (in a subconscious way) the mind of the horse. I\ncall this hypothesis of Ferrari impressive, because in this case it was\ndue to a person who is certainly not to be suspected of dilettantism,\nand still less of any pseudo-scientific mysticism.\n\nFor the rest I repeat that \"telepathy\" also may co-exist along with\n\"mediumistic\" action. In a general way, telepathy would seem to assume\nin the animal a greater amount of \"human\" psychic affinity, whilst in\nmediumistic action I look upon the animal as reacting to the\nintervention of the other mind in a much more \"automatic\" way: almost\nlike a \"speaking table,\" but a table provided with live feet rather\nthan inert legs, and above all provided with a nervous system forming\npart of it, so that very little action on the part of the medium is\nrequired, but the subliminal action of the investigator is enough by\nitself to work it. (Of course, this does not exclude altogether action\nby others or by the horse itself).\n\n    Krall admits the possibility of telepathy (but in a very limited\n    measure): and then, if I remember right, he was looking finally for\n    an explanation which to-day I should perhaps call of the\n    mediumistic type, if I had been better acquainted with it; but in\n    fact I had of him, in his lifetime, only some vague hint on the\n    point.\n\n    As to Miss Kindermann, she recognises the possibility of\n    transmission of thought in certain cases (e.g. when Lola is tired\n    or is unwilling to \"work\" any more). According to her it would be a\n    question of a line of least resistance, along which the \"work\" of\n    the animal becomes more easy. Hence arises the necessity, as she\n    maintains, for the investigator to be very careful of the danger of\n    falsified results and to _abstain with this object from any\n    intentional thought_. But these are the very conditions which\n    \"mediums\" impose on investigators, and if these conditions are not\n    observed, mediumistic seances seem only to be successful with\n    difficulty. Therefore, in trying to resist the danger of telepathic\n    falsification, and without indeed being aware of the resulting\n    consequences, Lola's mistress may have contributed to create the\n    very conditions most favourable to the development of mediumistic\n    action.\n\n\nV. THE HYPOTHESIS OF CONCOMITANT PSYCHICAL AUTOMATISM\n\nIn various parts of her book Miss Kindermann emphasizes the fact that\nafter having given for some days \"communications\" of a certain kind, a\nsort of tiredness or annoyance, that gets hold of Lola, completely\nprevents the repetition of similar communications; but that repetition\ncan take place if some weeks of rest are allowed in the subject which\nhas provoked the tiredness.\n\nIn another place she mentions that, with the progress of Lola's\n\"education,\" the dog's attitude towards herself, and other persons\ngenerally, became harder and more difficult, almost hostile (a fact\nwhich I find confirmed by certain answers of Lola's referred to\nelsewhere); just as if the canine consciousness as it gained\nillumination began to understand the many wrongs done to it by man,\nwhich formerly it knew nothing about.\n\nOther observers have repeatedly stated that a capital fact in the story\nof \"thinking\" animals is the necessity, which they regard as proved, of\na _progressive_ \"education\" directed at getting from the animal results\nproportionate to the instruction received.\n\nAll these observations and several others of a similar nature would\nseem to be arguments in favour of a presumed \"intelligence\" rather than\nof an automatism in the animal. But they should be accepted _cum\ngrano_. They may indeed contain a good dose of involuntary suggestion,\nactive or passive. And again, it seems to me, for instance, a very\ndoubtful procedure to maintain, after a positive result has been\nachieved by the animal, that the result should have been on the other\nhand negative, if the education has not yet reached the corresponding\nstage of development; and vice versa. As for me, when I read what Miss\nKindermann writes about the rapidity of Lola's progress, I cannot help\nthinking that, if the authoress had believed that she was able to\nobtain at once from the dog the results which she did obtain after a\nyear's work, she would have obtained them fully and completely.\n\nBut this extreme supposition may be exaggerated. I have already\nrepeatedly referred to the hypothesis that the psychic automatism in\nquestion may be only concomitant. That is, I am convinced from what I\nhave seen myself and read that a foundation of intelligence, of logical\nreasoning and of self consciousness, must go to constitute in the\nanimal the substratum on which the wonders of the \"new zoopsychology\"\nare built up.\n\nAt first I was rather inclined to believe (as so many others) that the\nfacts discovered at Elberfeld and at Mannheim could and should be\nexplained simply by the recognition of \"intelligence\" in the animal.\nThe chief results obtained up to then (i.e. up to the date of my last\npublications on the subject), were the mathematical prodigies performed\nby Krall's horses, and the first \"philosophic\" manifestations of Rolf.\nI accordingly thought that I should be able to interpret the new (and,\nin its complexity, rather modest) canine \"knowledge\" by the animal's\nmemory of words which it had heard. But since then the educators have\ntaken pleasure in raising the whole level of these wonders. Rolf's\n\"philosophy\" was developed; and in the end they went so far as to make\nhim compose poetry, as I have already had occasion to mention. Then\ncame the performances of Lola. And at this point I, too, must say: \"Too\nmuch, too much!\" At least, as far as concerns the hypothesis of\nintelligence in the animal.\n\nI understand perfectly that just on account of that \"too much,\" people\nmay be tempted to throw up the whole thing. But as far as I am\nconcerned, I repeat that I do not consider myself justified in doing\nso. I do not forget the possible intervention of active or passive\nsuggestion: I referred to this a short time ago. But a great abuse is\noften made of this explanation. In practice \"suggestion\" explains but\nlittle to any one who wants to get to the bottom of things. Neither\ndoes it explain the bulk of the facts of the \"new zoopsychology.\"\nNeither do I forget that in this field also (as in every field of\npsychological experiments) there may be an interfering although\nsubconscious misuse of spurious factors, such as signs (not intentional\nor perceptible) by the experimenter to the subject experimented with; a\ncertain amount of falsification in interpretation of results on the\npart of the experimenters, etc.... But the irreducible residue of the\nfacts is, in my opinion, still enormous as compared with the little\nthat could perhaps be eliminated by these means from the discussion.\nTherefore, in the absence of anything better for the moment, and\nsubject to further information, I hold to the hypothesis of a psychic\nautomatism of the mediumistic type, as a concomitant phenomenon\ndeveloped from the normal \"rapport\" which is _necessary_ and pre-existent.\n\nThis \"rapport\" is that of a master to a child; but to a very special\nkind of child, a \"child\" moreover who, from the biological point of\nview, has not been corrupted by the thousands of years of reasoning and\nsociety that weigh on the human child. It is, therefore, nearer to the\n\"fountains of life\" if I may be allowed to express myself in that way;\nand nearer to the mathematical potentiality (which was at first\nunself-conscious, but which has subsequently been developed). But, of\ncourse, it is not enough for mathematics \"to be\" in something, for that\nsomething to begin at once to tap numbers. The table of the mediumistic\nseances contains much mathematics (in its physical assemblage), but in\norder to make it \"tap\" there must be somebody to move it: in fact, a\n\"medium.\" In my view, as soon as the animal subject has been able to\nunderstand \"numbers\"--and this postulate of the new zoopsychology, I\nrepeat, I believe to be indispensable to the whole edifice--the animal\nfinds itself sufficiently in harmony with the master to become capable\n(in principle) of all the subsequent \"wonders.\"\n\nThis it is which constitutes the first discovery, as I have called it,\nof the \"new zoopsychology.\" And on that discovery, in my opinion, are\nbased through various gradations its chief results, on the supposition\nthat at a certain moment there takes place a new specific action, the\n\"declanchement\" of the mediumistic relationship between the animal and\nthe experimenter. And it may be that the development of such a very\nspecial relationship between man and animals may be comparatively easy.\nThat is, it may be that the animal is relatively easily _permeable_ by\na mind provided with a reasoning intelligence (without, however, being\nitself aware of the logical content of such an intelligence), exactly\nbecause it is rather poor in logical self-conscious content--or, again,\nit may be, that the animal in a certain sense is nearer than we to the\n\"fountains of life.\" (9).\n\nThe possibility of this \"declanchement\" would therefore constitute the\nsecond and more serious discovery made by the educators of animals;\nalthough without their knowing it, as is proved by all their accounts\nwhich make no mention of it.\n\nIt is difficult to say what the precise moment is at which the grafting\nof this supernormal connexion on the normal one takes place. The most\nthat I can say at present is this: that the grafting in question\nappears relatively to be quicker as regards the mathematical results.\nAnd this would lend an indirect support to the view that generally\nmathematics must be presupposed as underlying the phenomena. But the\nwonderful performances of Lola show that even so far as there is real\n\"intelligence\" in the animal, the supernormal relationship enters very\nquickly on the scene. In other words, the subject very quickly learns\nto express itself by means of a true \"xenoglossy,\" i.e. by means of a\nlanguage that may be clear to other people although it probably is not\nunderstood by the animal or medium making use of it.\n\n    Besides, we find in Lola's case a high degree of glossolalia. The\n    authoress observes, e.g. on page 39: \"Lola often uses words\n    completely incomprehensible; at one time she declared that they\n    belonged to a special canine language. My investigations on this\n    subject remained, however, without result. It is possible that\n    these words arise from the imagination of the animal....\"[30]\n    Something similar was also produced by Rolf and the Elberfeld\n    horses.\n\n      [30] N.B.--It may also be that the \"quite incomprehensible words\"\n      have not any meaning at all, or at least, not any relation with\n      the mechanism of the glossolalia, but are simply the product of\n      taps made by the animal just for the sake of doing something.\n\nOf course, even after the development of this \"xenoglossy,\" it is\ndifficult either to admit or to refuse to admit some remainder of\nself-conscious co-operation by the animal in its \"answers.\" For my\npart, I believe that simple replies may continue to be formed in the\nnormal self-conscious way. It is certain, in my opinion, that this view\nis one of the only two alternatives possible when we get replies to\nquestions the contents of which are entirely unknown to everybody else\npresent. The other alternative is that of clairvoyance in those present\nfollowed by projection by them to the animal of the idea obtained\nclairvoyantly; or else of a \"telepathic\" projection of the\nsense-impression from the animal to the bystanders, with return of the\nreply from the latter to the former. I do not dare to complicate this\nfurther; the more so as in all the cases which I know of in which\nreplies were obtained to such questions, very simple things only were\ndealt with: figures, or modest problems; or else problems which are\nabstruse \"to us,\" such as fourth and fifth roots, but which as the\nanimal was one of the horses at Elberfeld may be explained by the\ngeneral mathematical faculty without drawing upon the mediumistic\nhypothesis.\n\nBut that there is on the whole much of the subliminal at work in all\nthe cases noted is, I believe, difficult to deny.\n\n    We must remember that superior \"force\" by which Miss Kindermann\n    felt herself, as it were, compelled (page 36). And in another place\n    (page 40), the authoress declares: \"However strange it may seem, I\n    have repeatedly remarked that Lola always finds abstract\n    calculation and spelling easy; whilst on the other hand it always\n    seems difficult to make her move single parts of her body, or to\n    carry out practical orders.\" (I myself was able to make similar\n    observations at Elberfeld and at Mannheim; it seemed to me,\n    however, that the horses were more docile to \"practical orders.\").\n\n    On page 42 I find: \"During the explanation of the digits and of the\n    tens, the dog did not look at me, but bit with apparently very\n    great interest a leg of the stool.\" It must be noted, as I have\n    already pointed out, that the digits and the tens were both alike\n    learned quickly and well. The authoress explains this action of\n    Lola's as a \"mark of embarrassment.\" But to me that leg of the\n    stool is exactly on a par with the salad leaf mentioned by\n    Professor Ferrari: i.e. the dog did not pay the slightest attention\n    to the lesson; it replied without the help of intelligent attention\n    on its part; it replied in the subliminal way, like the unconscious\n    instrument of a psychic automatism, and by the use of an\n    intelligence which was not its own.\n\n    Similar impressions are left by other points in the story of Lola.\n    I read on page 64: \"If, for instance, I write one under the other\n    three or four numbers of two figures each, very quickly, and\n    without adding them myself, and then hold up the sheet in front of\n    the dog, I see that her eyes only glance at the sheet for 1-2\n    seconds; after which the dog bends its head to add but looks away,\n    and then taps the reply.\" This behaviour is the same as that of\n    Krall's pony Hanschen, when Dr. Assagioli and I made experiments\n    with it.\n\n    The same can be said of various other performances of an intuitive\n    kind, on the part of Lola, to which the authoress refers: e.g.\n    knowledge in four seconds of a given number of points (up to 35),\n    marked without any regularity whatever on a piece of paper.\n    (Similar experiments were made at Elberfeld and Mannheim.) Other\n    performances of an intuitive kind concern various measures of time,\n    temperature, musical intervals, etc., and they reach their highest\n    point in the _premonitions_ as to the course of the weather and the\n    birth of the puppies. Professor Ziegler finds the explanation of\n    this last performance in the prenatal movements of the foetus\n    within the maternal body. This seems to me doubtful; besides, it\n    must be remembered that this prevision of Lola's was a double one,\n    as it concerned both the number and the sex of the puppies\n    (autoscopia?). The fact that the sex of the puppies was foretold\n    _almost_ correctly does not eliminate all doubt. And the authoress\n    gives sufficient details on the experiment to make us regard it as\n    genuine, until we have proof to the contrary.\n\nMany other manifestations of Lola's betray very clearly a subliminal\nrelationship between herself and her mistress (or perhaps between\nherself and other persons), and so I do not see that there is any\nreason for us to doubt that Miss Kindermann was really surprised at the\nreplies which she obtained.\n\n    I could cite at length: I am content, however, to remind the reader\n    of the many replies of the dog which reveal quite clearly the\n    feeling of the authoress towards the dog itself, as e.g., \"I know\n    you, alas, so little\"; or again, \"Show constancy in your love for\n    me,\" etc.; then, again, the words never pronounced before in\n    presence of the dog (this makes me think of the famous \"Urseele\" of\n    Rolf); the things said by Lola, but not known by her mistress, and\n    then found true....\n\nFinally I must allude to the \"discovery\" made by Lola that the odours\nof the human body reveal the state of the human mind--displeasure,\njealousy, lie (sic); on which the authoress observes (very justly, in a\ncertain sense), that these experiments make one think of the well-known\ntheories of the late Prof. Jaegar of Stockholm.... I am in agreement\nwith her on that point, because I, too, have read the \"Entdeckung der\nSeele\" by that author; as I suppose she, too, had. I am inclined to\nthink that in her case (as she was experimenting with a dog) it was\nonly natural for her to think of these psycho-olfactory\ntheories--perhaps without knowing it--even before the experiments.\nTherefore, the experiments themselves would always be perfectly\n\"genuine,\" but of course this genuineness is of a different sort to\nwhat she thought it.\n\nTo conclude, the supporters of the new zoopsychology must not complain\nif the views which I have set out above help in course of time to oust\ntheir \"point of view.\" It seems to me that even while robbing the\n\"thinking\" animals of some of the intelligence attributed to them, and\nwhile regarding what remains as qualitatively different from human\nintelligence (e.g. through the much greater interference of\nsubconscious factors), we are still free to find the animals to be\nperhaps even more interesting than before.\n\nI am quite conscious of the fact that the \"cases\" are still few for\ntheories to be built upon; and some may think that I might have done\nbetter by reporting them simply without attempting any explanation\nwhatever. However, I believe, that if as the result of my work the\nrecognition of the internal weakness of certain hypotheses--especially\nin the psychological field--is generally recognized, it will not be so\nharmful to have put forward some suggestions for dealing with facts\nwhich have already been, or will be, established.\n\nI have accordingly tried to do so, but I shall always be ready to\nmodify my views if new facts should persuade me that this is necessary.\n\n                     *      *      *      *      *\n\n_Postscript._--Professor G. C. Ferrari has published an article on Lola\nin _Rivista de Psicologia_, 1920, 1. His explanation corresponds in\nmany points with my own.\n\n\n\n\nBIBLIOGRAPHY\n\n\n 1. E. Bozzano. \"Animals and Psychic Perception.\" _The Annals of\nPsychical Science_, II, 2. London, 1905.\n\n 2. E. Morselli. _Psychology and Spiritism_ (in Italian). Fr. Bocca,\nTurin, 1908.\n\n 3. C. de Vesme. \"The Thinking Horses of Elberfeld\" (in French).\n_Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, XXII, 12. Paris, 1910.\n\n 4. G. C. Ferrari and F. Pulle. \"The First Month of a Horse's Education\"\n(in Italian). _Rivista di Psicologia_, March-April, 1913.\n\n 5. E. C. Sanford. \"Psychic Research in the Animal Field.\" _American\nJournal of Psychology_, XXV, 1914.\n\n 6. P. Sarasin. \"Animal and Human Quick Reckoners\" (in German), from\n_Proceedings of the Natural History Society at Basle_. Basle, 1915.\n\n 7. H. E. Ziegler. _The Soul of the Animal_ (in German). W. Junk,\nBerlin, 1916.\n\n 8. W. Neumann. \"Pseudo-animal-psychology\" (in German), from\n_Naturwiss: Wochenschrift_. Jena, 1916.\n\n 9. W. Mackenzie. _At the Founts of Life_ (in Italian). A. F.\nFormiggini, Rome, 1916. (Out of print).\n\n10. W. Maeterlinck. _The Unknown Guest._ Methuen, London.\n\n11. P. Moekel. _My Dog Rolf_ (in German). R. Lutz, Stuttgart, 1919.\n\n12. W. Mackenzie. \"Rolf of Mannheim.\" Translated by Miss E. Lathan,\nwith notes by Professor J. H. Hyslop. _Proceedings of the American\nSociety for Psychical Research._ New York, August, 1919.\n\n13. H. E. Ziegler. \"The Memory of the Dog\" (in German), from\n_Zoologischer Anzeiger_. Leipzig, November, 1919.\n\n14. H. Kindermann. _Lola._ Jordan, Stuttgart, 1919.\n\n15. G. C. Ferrari. \"What Talking Dogs Think\" (in Italian). _Riv. di\nPsicologia_, Bologna, XVI, 1. 1920.\n\n\n_Printed in Great Britain by Jarrold & Sons, Ltd., Norwich._","title":"Lola : $b or, The thought and speech of animals","tradition":"folklore-oral-tradition","translated_text":null,"word_count":51145}