In various parts of her book Miss Kindermann emphasizes the fact that
after having given for some days "communications" of a certain kind, a
sort of tiredness or annoyance, that gets hold of Lola, completely
prevents the repetition of similar communications; but that repetition
can take place if some weeks of rest are allowed in the subject which
has provoked the tiredness.
In another place she mentions that, with the progress of Lola's
"education," the dog's attitude towards herself, and other persons
generally, became harder and more difficult, almost hostile (a fact
which I find confirmed by certain answers of Lola's referred to
elsewhere); just as if the canine consciousness as it gained
illumination began to understand the many wrongs done to it by man,
which formerly it knew nothing about.
Other observers have repeatedly stated that a capital fact in the story
of "thinking" animals is the necessity, which they regard as proved, of
a _progressive_ "education" directed at getting from the animal results
proportionate to the instruction received.
All these observations and several others of a similar nature would
seem to be arguments in favour of a presumed "intelligence" rather than
of an automatism in the animal. But they should be accepted _cum
grano_. They may indeed contain a good dose of involuntary suggestion,
active or passive. And again, it seems to me, for instance, a very
doubtful procedure to maintain, after a positive result has been
achieved by the animal, that the result should have been on the other
hand negative, if the education has not yet reached the corresponding
stage of development; and vice versa. As for me, when I read what Miss
Kindermann writes about the rapidity of Lola's progress, I cannot help
thinking that, if the authoress had believed that she was able to
obtain at once from the dog the results which she did obtain after a
year's work, she would have obtained them fully and completely.
But this extreme supposition may be exaggerated. I have already
repeatedly referred to the hypothesis that the psychic automatism in
question may be only concomitant. That is, I am convinced from what I
have seen myself and read that a foundation of intelligence, of logical
reasoning and of self consciousness, must go to constitute in the
animal the substratum on which the wonders of the "new zoopsychology"
are built up.
At first I was rather inclined to believe (as so many others) that the
facts discovered at Elberfeld and at Mannheim could and should be
explained simply by the recognition of "intelligence" in the animal.
The chief results obtained up to then (i.e. up to the date of my last
publications on the subject), were the mathematical prodigies performed
by Krall's horses, and the first "philosophic" manifestations of Rolf.
I accordingly thought that I should be able to interpret the new (and,
in its complexity, rather modest) canine "knowledge" by the animal's
memory of words which it had heard. But since then the educators have
taken pleasure in raising the whole level of these wonders. Rolf's
"philosophy" was developed; and in the end they went so far as to make
him compose poetry, as I have already had occasion to mention. Then
came the performances of Lola. And at this point I, too, must say: "Too
much, too much!" At least, as far as concerns the hypothesis of
intelligence in the animal.
I understand perfectly that just on account of that "too much," people
may be tempted to throw up the whole thing. But as far as I am
concerned, I repeat that I do not consider myself justified in doing
so. I do not forget the possible intervention of active or passive
suggestion: I referred to this a short time ago. But a great abuse is
often made of this explanation. In practice "suggestion" explains but
little to any one who wants to get to the bottom of things. Neither
does it explain the bulk of the facts of the "new zoopsychology."
Neither do I forget that in this field also (as in every field of
psychological experiments) there may be an interfering although
subconscious misuse of spurious factors, such as signs (not intentional
or perceptible) by the experimenter to the subject experimented with; a
certain amount of falsification in interpretation of results on the
part of the experimenters, etc.... But the irreducible residue of the
facts is, in my opinion, still enormous as compared with the little
that could perhaps be eliminated by these means from the discussion.
Therefore, in the absence of anything better for the moment, and
subject to further information, I hold to the hypothesis of a psychic
automatism of the mediumistic type, as a concomitant phenomenon
developed from the normal "rapport" which is _necessary_ and pre-existent.
This "rapport" is that of a master to a child; but to a very special
kind of child, a "child" moreover who, from the biological point of
view, has not been corrupted by the thousands of years of reasoning and
society that weigh on the human child. It is, therefore, nearer to the
"fountains of life" if I may be allowed to express myself in that way;
and nearer to the mathematical potentiality (which was at first
unself-conscious, but which has subsequently been developed). But, of
course, it is not enough for mathematics "to be" in something, for that
something to begin at once to tap numbers. The table of the mediumistic
séances contains much mathematics (in its physical assemblage), but in
order to make it "tap" there must be somebody to move it: in fact, a
"medium." In my view, as soon as the animal subject has been able to
understand "numbers"--and this postulate of the new zoopsychology, I
repeat, I believe to be indispensable to the whole edifice--the animal
finds itself sufficiently in harmony with the master to become capable
(in principle) of all the subsequent "wonders."
This it is which constitutes the first discovery, as I have called it,
of the "new zoopsychology." And on that discovery, in my opinion, are
based through various gradations its chief results, on the supposition
that at a certain moment there takes place a new specific action, the
"déclanchement" of the mediumistic relationship between the animal and
the experimenter. And it may be that the development of such a very
special relationship between man and animals may be comparatively easy.
That is, it may be that the animal is relatively easily _permeable_ by
a mind provided with a reasoning intelligence (without, however, being
itself aware of the logical content of such an intelligence), exactly
because it is rather poor in logical self-conscious content--or, again,
it may be, that the animal in a certain sense is nearer than we to the
"fountains of life." (9).
The possibility of this "déclanchement" would therefore constitute the
second and more serious discovery made by the educators of animals;
although without their knowing it, as is proved by all their accounts
which make no mention of it.
It is difficult to say what the precise moment is at which the grafting
of this supernormal connexion on the normal one takes place. The most
that I can say at present is this: that the grafting in question
appears relatively to be quicker as regards the mathematical results.
And this would lend an indirect support to the view that generally
mathematics must be presupposed as underlying the phenomena. But the
wonderful performances of Lola show that even so far as there is real
"intelligence" in the animal, the supernormal relationship enters very
quickly on the scene. In other words, the subject very quickly learns
to express itself by means of a true "xenoglossy," i.e. by means of a
language that may be clear to other people although it probably is not
understood by the animal or medium making use of it.
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._