Lola Part 2

"'Do you know this gentleman?' To which Ilse replied: 'No!' adding, as though as an after-thought--'Rolf!' She had evidently scented Rolf (who is her father and of whom she is very fond) about my husband's clothes'"

"B. REPORT ON THE DOG HEINZ

"A second dog, by name Heinz, who came into the possession of Mr.

Justice Leser in Mannheim, has proved himself to be an excellent arithmetician, and this without ever having been worried with instruction. In the same way as Rolf he gives two raps for 'yes' and three for 'no,' while four express that he is 'tired.'

"Mr. Justice Leser reports:

"If I ask Heinz whether he will do arithmetic he invariably raps "2,"

even though sometimes accompanying his a.s.sent with a yawn. I am generally obliged to hold out the prospect of some reward as an inducement to do his sums. I should have preferred his rapping against some article one could hold in one's hand, or that he could be induced to "rap out" on a board setting forth the numbers, and which might be placed on the floor before him; but to neither of these alternatives will he agree, having since his earliest youth learnt to rap in the same way as Rolf does. He will, however, not only rap for me, but for any person he knows well, solving such problems as: 3 + 4 - 6, or [121rt] + 3, or 14/2 + 4, or 3^2, and he seldom makes a mistake, even when the sum he may be asked merely resembles the form of arithmetic he has learnt. But he generally gives up after two or three sums and is generally distracted. He can read the figures too, and generally gives a correct solution to sums which have been written down for him and which I myself have not read. Like Rolf, he only looks at the paper sideways. He reads very reluctantly. His memory is excellent; especially quick is he at recognizing those persons again who have at any time had to do with him.'

"When I was in Mannheim on 22 March, 1916, Mr. Justice Leser was kind enough to show me the dog. I put some problems to it verbally and was able to satisfy myself as to its abilities in the matter of arithmetic.

Of those then put by me I still call to mind the following: '24 3 - 3?' Answer: '5,' and '[10,000rt] - 87?' Answer: '13.'[9]

[9] The dog had become familiar with square roots in the course of earlier attempts."

"C. REPORT ON THE DOG HARRAS

"The third dog, Harras, came into the possession of Fraulein Eva Hoffmann, of Schloss Berwartstein, near Bergzabern, and was instructed by her in spelling and arithmetic with excellent results. This lady sends the following report:

"'From the very beginning his gift for arithmetic was quite remarkable.

It was enough to give him an idea of how to reckon, explaining to him the different forms of arithmetic, for the dog to learn to give the right answers to easy sums immediately.

"'Fractions, decimals, cubes and the easier forms of equation, have been set him by a stranger. With some coaching he was also able to master textual problems in this way, giving eager and glad response in the form of "yes" and "no" when it came to questioning him as to his having understood or not understood--liked or not liked the subject. He usually did his sums with evident pleasure and with amazing celerity.

Spelling gave him more trouble. He could not even remember an alphabet he had himself put together, and one I invented for him he only memorized after going over it many times. He took no pleasure in putting words together and got tired very soon. Some of his original remarks are that he recognized Sunday by the "dress" I had on; also that he had dreamt of a "cow" (this after having seen one when we were out walking), and so on.

"'Remarkable is his love of truth; should he have done anything that deserves punishment, he approaches me with his head hanging down and a very dejected tail--replying to the question as to whether he deserves a whipping with a reluctant "yes," and to a further enquiry as to whether he is ashamed of himself, he responds with an emphatic "yes--yes--yes!"

"'But as is the case with children, example and precept are of far greater use than corporeal punishment, although this cannot be neglected altogether. The axiom that we evolve in accordance with the treatment meted out to us is as true in the case of an animal as it is with that of a human being, and the more this is recognized and laid to heart the shorter will be the martyrdom still inflicted upon the animal kingdom.'

"In the March of this year Fraulein Hoffmann was kind enough to communicate the following incident to me; it corroborates an earlier observation made by Frau Dr. Moekel (compare 'Communications of the Society for Animal Psychology,' 1914, p. 6, or 'The Soul of an Animal,'

1916, p. 81).

"'I was sitting in the garden reading, when I heard the sound of birds twittering over their food in a tree hard by. Harras watched them attentively for some time and I told him the names of the birds--they were jays and wood-p.e.c.k.e.rs. The next morning he did not come up to my room a second time with the maid, although he can generally hardly contain himself until he has had his breakfast given him. At length, when he did appear, I asked him if he had seen the birds again, and he answered "yes"; then to my question as to their names he gave "her" and "spct" (i.e. "Haher" and "Specht" = jay and woodp.e.c.k.e.r).'"

"D. REPORT ON THE DOG ROLAND

"Little Roland, who received his first tuition from Frau Dr. Moekel, unfortunately came to an untimely end--owing to an accident.[10]

Concerning this, Frau Dr. Moekel wrote to me in March, 1915, as follows:

[10] Frau Dr. Moekel taught another young dog, called Lux, as well as Roland, the former being taken over by a gentleman in Mannheim. In a protocol dated 14 June, 1914, I stated that Lux was able to do a certain amount of arithmetic at the age of four and a half months.

"'My dear little Roland--whom we called "Guckerl" ( = Peep-eyes), because of his wonderful eyes, has been run over by a motor-car. He suffered terribly for two days and died on 19 March. His death is not only a sorrow to me, but a loss to the interests of the cause we have at heart, for Roland had begun to make the most delightful remarks quite spontaneously. On the last evening before the accident, he came to me and--without having been questioned--rapped out: "Rolf ark bei (s) d arm roland" ( = Rolf has badly bitten poor Roland). I was not able at the time to translate his little utterance, and it was only after his death that I remembered my notes. Then, on putting them together it transpired that Roland had been bitten by Rolf because he had chased Daisy, our kitten.

"'Roland could recognize money, stamps and bank-notes; he could count flowers and bricks, and knew all the various colours and scents as well as count tones, recognize melodies and tell the time.'

"I have not added my report made with reference to Lola to the above, the object of my book being to make the reader acquainted with this dog."

MY PREVIOUS ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE SUBJECT

I cannot remember whether it was in 1912, or earlier, or possibly even later, that I heard for the first time of Karl Krall's horses at Elberfeld. No details then reached me; only just the generalities relative to their ability to count and spell. Of their fore-runner, "der kluge Hans," I had as yet heard nothing. I had been a child when Hans had made his debut, so to speak; he had then vanished and the odium which had later attached to his name was, therefore, unknown to me. I may say that I was totally unprejudiced when the news of these horses reached and, indeed, as there was but little information I did not interest myself further about the subject, although it had made a momentary impression on me. A year or two later Professor Kraemer of Hohenheim arrested public attention by his investigations respecting animals, and it was there that I heard him deliver a lecture on the horses and also the dog Rolf of Mannheim, hearing further details from him in conversation with my father[11] and myself. What I then heard interested me immensely.

[11] Professor Karl Kindermann, of Hohenheim.

Professor Kraemer was a keen advocate of this subject, but I was chary of forming any opinion without deeper investigations. The possibility of "self-expression" on the part of animals did not seem to me to be beyond the bounds of belief, even though some examples which were supposed to attest to high intelligence seemed to me a little doubtful.

I tried to get more information, but was hindered at the time owing to the three years' course of studies I was then pursuing at the Hohenheim School of Agriculture, so that I was neither able to try any experiments on my own part, nor even to read Krall's great work on the subject. The entire question, therefore, remained an open one--as far as I was concerned, although my father had been to Elberfeld to see the horses, and had,--after making personal tests--come to the conclusion that everything was above-board and in accordance with what it claimed to be and that the animals really did give answers which were the outcome of their own independent thinking. In addition to this I read the public communications made by Professor Ziegler at Stuttgart, as well as also his own personal opinions.

Both these gentlemen, Professor Ziegler, as well as Professor Kraemer, were known to me only in their capacity of serious and conscientious investigators, men upon whose judgment I might safely rely, so long as my own experience did not oblige me to take up a different standpoint.

And further, I skimmed over everything that the Press brought forward of an opposing nature, so that I might know _their_ point of view as well.

After I had pa.s.sed my Academic Examination, and taken my Diploma, I took over, some six months later, the independent management of a big estate in the Rheinland, which consisted of three hundred acres. (I was able to do this on the strength of some practical experience I had had previously in Thuringen apart from my studies.)

After a year and a half I felt sufficiently at home at the work to be able to turn my attention to such matters of interest as lay outside that of my daily work, and I now called to mind the subject of the "Thinking Horses," deciding to attempt some experiments. The approach of such a solitary season as winter seemed to me particularly suited to this attempt and I placed myself in communication with Professor Ziegler so as to hear of a likely animal. It was to be a dog, and--for preference--a relation of Rolf. Indeed, I felt sure of excellent results, should my quest meet with success. A dog is of all animals _the_ one that has for generations a.s.sociated most with man; its attachment is of the most intimate and the most faithful nature, so that by inheritance, as it were, it would seem to be in a greater state of "preparedness" for fulfilling man's behests. Horses, oxen, a.s.ses, pigs, and poultry, etc., are each and all, of course, accustomed to the guidance of man's hand, but--here in Europe, at all events--they live their lives apart and are not so domesticated; they cannot, therefore, form so intimate an acquaintance with man, by means of eye and ear, as can enable them to comprehend both language and gestures. For practical purposes horses would seem to come next to dogs in the matter of intelligence--more particularly Arab horses. An Arab talks to his horse as he would to a friend, and the sparkle in the eye of this animal denotes its intelligence. In the matter of actual sensibility, the ox, the a.s.s, and other creatures have practically nothing in common with us, showing an utterly foreign type of intelligence, and one, moreover, which has--owing to the existent century-old customs of keeping them isolated in their stalls--depressed even such intelligence as was originally theirs. Creatures of the wild seem only in exceptional cases to prove amenable to training, however great their intelligence may be they cannot adapt themselves to man's control, and can as a rule only imitate, seldom revealing to us any gleam of mental alertness.

Professor Ziegler recommended a b.i.t.c.h which was a descendant of Rolf's and advised me to pay a visit to Mannheim. I did so, and our interview was most satisfactory. It lasted three-quarters of an hour, by which time I had a.s.sured myself that the dog could answer, even though he did not tap my hand, but rapped out his remarks on a piece of cardboard held by Fraulein Moekel. Here is the account of my visit:

"REPORT OF FRaULEIN KINDERMANN OF HER VISIT TO THE FAMILY OF DR.

MOEKEL, IN MANNHEIM, 11 JANUARY, 1916.

"After hearing much about the 'thinking animals,' more particularly about the dog Rolf, and having also with great enthusiasm read everything I could find on the subject, I became obsessed with the desire to embark on this study, forming my opinion by tests carried out myself, thus personally being in a position to approach the subject with the requisite scientific accuracy.

"The Moekels a.s.sisted my desire with kindly and ready response, placing a descendant of Rolf at my disposal, and allowing me to acquire some insight into their 'spelling-method' by watching Rolf at work. Here is the account of my visit:

"Rolf was brought into a room where there was no one beyond the family and myself. Rolf ran eagerly from one to the other and jumped up at me.

Holding up a little packet of biscuits, I said to him:

"'This is what Professor Ziegler sends you from Stuttgart with many greetings, and he hopes you are good, and that you will write him a letter.'

"I saw from his glance that he understood me, but it was only after Fraulein Moekel had most earnestly 'put it to him' that he consented to rap out a reply. At first it was not easy for me to follow, for--owing probably to his reluctance--he was not "working" distinctly, but by degrees I accustomed myself to his methods, and was able to "keep count" along with the others. What he rapped out was this:

"'Lib Deigler, dank fur fein gegs,[12] die geben nit gegs arm lol[13]

mehr schicken; madel is lieb, gruss von lol" ( = Dear Dr. Ziegler, thanks for nice biscuits: they give no biscuits to poor Lol--send more.

The girl's a dear: greetings from Lol.)'

[12] Gegs = keks; Germans call biscuits "keks."

[13] Here observe that Rolf has the impudence to complain of the Moekels for not feeding him on sweet biscuits!

"After this I showed him some salmon wrapped up in paper, and said:

"'See! this is what I have brought for you; what is it?' To this he did not rap out 'salmon,' as we had all expected--good as it was to the smell, but 'erst riechen' (first let me smell it). This was a ruse on his part, and one to which I succ.u.mbed, for no sooner did I hold it nearer to his nose than he s.n.a.t.c.hed it out of my hand! It was, however, promptly taken from him and he was told he would have to 'deserve it'