rtain, 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.