Chapter 13

Besides, we find in Lola's case a high degree of glossolalia. The authoress observes, e.g. on page 39: "Lola often uses words completely incomprehensible; at one time she declared that they belonged to a special canine language. My investigations on this subject remained, however, without result. It is possible that these words arise from the imagination of the animal...."[30] Something similar was also produced by Rolf and the Elberfeld horses.

[30] N.B.--It may also be that the "quite incomprehensible words" have not any meaning at all, or at least, not any relation with the mechanism of the glossolalia, but are simply the product of taps made by the animal just for the sake of doing something.

Of course, even after the development of this "xenoglossy," it is difficult either to admit or to refuse to admit some remainder of self-conscious co-operation by the animal in its "answers." For my part, I believe that simple replies may continue to be formed in the normal self-conscious way. It is certain, in my opinion, that this view is one of the only two alternatives possible when we get replies to questions the contents of which are entirely unknown to everybody else present. The other alternative is that of clairvoyance in those present followed by projection by them to the animal of the idea obtained clairvoyantly; or else of a "telepathic" projection of the sense-impression from the animal to the bystanders, with return of the reply from the latter to the former. I do not dare to complicate this further; the more so as in all the cases which I know of in which replies were obtained to such questions, very simple things only were dealt with: figures, or modest problems; or else problems which are abstruse "to us," such as fourth and fifth roots, but which as the animal was one of the horses at Elberfeld may be explained by the general mathematical faculty without drawing upon the mediumistic hypothesis.

But that there is on the whole much of the subliminal at work in all the cases noted is, I believe, difficult to deny.

We must remember that superior "force" by which Miss Kindermann felt herself, as it were, compelled (page 36). And in another place (page 40), the authoress declares: "However strange it may seem, I have repeatedly remarked that Lola always finds abstract calculation and spelling easy; whilst on the other hand it always seems difficult to make her move single parts of her body, or to carry out practical orders." (I myself was able to make similar observations at Elberfeld and at Mannheim; it seemed to me, however, that the horses were more docile to "practical orders.").

On page 42 I find: "During the explanation of the digits and of the tens, the dog did not look at me, but bit with apparently very great interest a leg of the stool." It must be noted, as I have already pointed out, that the digits and the tens were both alike learned quickly and well. The authoress explains this action of Lola's as a "mark of embarrassment." But to me that leg of the stool is exactly on a par with the salad leaf mentioned by Professor Ferrari: i.e. the dog did not pay the slightest attention to the lesson; it replied without the help of intelligent attention on its part; it replied in the subliminal way, like the unconscious instrument of a psychic automatism, and by the use of an intelligence which was not its own.

Similar impressions are left by other points in the story of Lola. I read on page 64: "If, for instance, I write one under the other three or four numbers of two figures each, very quickly, and without adding them myself, and then hold up the sheet in front of the dog, I see that her eyes only glance at the sheet for 1-2 seconds; after which the dog bends its head to add but looks away, and then taps the reply." This behaviour is the same as that of Krall's pony Hanschen, when Dr. Assagioli and I made experiments with it.

The same can be said of various other performances of an intuitive kind, on the part of Lola, to which the authoress refers: e.g. knowledge in four seconds of a given number of points (up to 35), marked without any regularity whatever on a piece of paper. (Similar experiments were made at Elberfeld and Mannheim.) Other performances of an intuitive kind concern various measures of time, temperature, musical intervals, etc., and they reach their highest point in the _premonitions_ as to the course of the weather and the birth of the puppies. Professor Ziegler finds the explanation of this last performance in the prenatal movements of the foetus within the maternal body. This seems to me doubtful; besides, it must be remembered that this prevision of Lola's was a double one, as it concerned both the number and the sex of the puppies (autoscopia?). The fact that the sex of the puppies was foretold _almost_ correctly does not eliminate all doubt. And the authoress gives sufficient details on the experiment to make us regard it as genuine, until we have proof to the contrary.

Many other manifestations of Lola's betray very clearly a subliminal relationship between herself and her mistress (or perhaps between herself and other persons), and so I do not see that there is any reason for us to doubt that Miss Kindermann was really surprised at the replies which she obtained.

I could cite at length: I am content, however, to remind the reader of the many replies of the dog which reveal quite clearly the feeling of the authoress towards the dog itself, as e.g., "I know you, alas, so little"; or again, "Show constancy in your love for me," etc.; then, again, the words never pronounced before in presence of the dog (this makes me think of the famous "Urseele" of Rolf); the things said by Lola, but not known by her mistress, and then found true....

Finally I must allude to the "discovery" made by Lola that the odours of the human body reveal the state of the human mind--displeasure, jealousy, lie (sic); on which the authoress observes (very justly, in a certain sense), that these experiments make one think of the well-known theories of the late Prof. Jaegar of Stockholm.... I am in agreement with her on that point, because I, too, have read the "Entdeckung der Seele" by that author; as I suppose she, too, had. I am inclined to think that in her case (as she was experimenting with a dog) it was only natural for her to think of these psycho-olfactory theories--perhaps without knowing it--even before the experiments. Therefore, the experiments themselves would always be perfectly "genuine," but of course this genuineness is of a different sort to what she thought it.

To conclude, the supporters of the new zoopsychology must not complain if the views which I have set out above help in course of time to oust their "point of view." It seems to me that even while robbing the "thinking" animals of some of the intelligence attributed to them, and while regarding what remains as qualitatively different from human intelligence (e.g. through the much greater interference of subconscious factors), we are still free to find the animals to be perhaps even more interesting than before.

I am quite conscious of the fact that the "cases" are still few for theories to be built upon; and some may think that I might have done better by reporting them simply without attempting any explanation whatever. However, I believe, that if as the result of my work the recognition of the internal weakness of certain hypotheses--especially in the psychological field--is generally recognized, it will not be so harmful to have put forward some suggestions for dealing with facts which have already been, or will be, established.

I have accordingly tried to do so, but I shall always be ready to modify my views if new facts should persuade me that this is necessary.

* * * * *

_Postscript._--Professor G. C. Ferrari has published an article on Lola in _Rivista de Psicologia_, 1920, 1. His explanation corresponds in many points with my own.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. E. Bozzano. "Animals and Psychic Perception." _The Annals of Psychical Science_, II, 2. London, 1905.

2. E. Morselli. _Psychology and Spiritism_ (in Italian). Fr. Bocca, Turin, 1908.

3. C. de Vesme. "The Thinking Horses of Elberfeld" (in French). _Annales des Sciences Psychiques_, XXII, 12. Paris, 1910.

4. G. C. Ferrari and F. Pulle. "The First Month of a Horse's Education" (in Italian). _Rivista di Psicologia_, March-April, 1913.

5. E. C. Sanford. "Psychic Research in the Animal Field." _American Journal of Psychology_, XXV, 1914.

6. P. Sarasin. "Animal and Human Quick Reckoners" (in German), from _Proceedings of the Natural History Society at Basle_. Basle, 1915.

7. H. E. Ziegler. _The Soul of the Animal_ (in German). W. Junk, Berlin, 1916.

8. W. Neumann. "Pseudo-animal-psychology" (in German), from _Naturwiss: Wochenschrift_. Jena, 1916.

9. W. Mackenzie. _At the Founts of Life_ (in Italian). A. F. Formiggini, Rome, 1916. (Out of print).

10. W. Maeterlinck. _The Unknown Guest._ Methuen, London.

11. P. Moekel. _My Dog Rolf_ (in German). R. Lutz, Stuttgart, 1919.

12. W. Mackenzie. "Rolf of Mannheim." Translated by Miss E. Lathan, with notes by Professor J. H. Hyslop. _Proceedings of the American Society for Psychical Research._ New York, August, 1919.

13. H. E. Ziegler. "The Memory of the Dog" (in German), from _Zoologischer Anzeiger_. Leipzig, November, 1919.

14. H. Kindermann. _Lola._ Jordan, Stuttgart, 1919.

15. G. C. Ferrari. "What Talking Dogs Think" (in Italian). _Riv. di Psicologia_, Bologna, XVI, 1. 1920.

_Printed in Great Britain by Jarrold & Sons, Ltd., Norwich._