IN THE SHETLANDS 107 
We may think “out of sight, out of mind” with 
animals, but what is probably wanted to make them 
remember is a reminder of some sort ; and when they 
are reminded, though their memory may be less 
capacious than ours, it does not follow that it is like- 
wise less vivid within their own limited range. In- 
deed, I think there is some reason to conclude the 
contrary. The imagination of a great writer is such 
that he sees the scenes and persons that exist but in 
his own mind, as clearly, possibly, as we do our own 
familiar friends and their, or our, all as familiar sur- 
roundings. We must suppose so, at any rate, as we 
read Scott or Shakespeare ; and indeed their produc- 
tions are such that it cannot be far short of this. 
I question if any man ever saw his absent friend 
more clearly than did Shakespeare his Falstaff, for in- 
stance, or Scott his Balfour of Burleigh. But does it, 
therefore, follow that either of these great writers 
would, when hungry, have summoned up before him 
a clearer picture of his approaching dinner, than does 
the equally hungry or very much hungrier boor? 
This I doubt ; and on the same principle I doubt if the 
said boor would see fis dinner more clearly than a 
wolf, bear, or tiger would theirs when in quest of it. 
The memory of an animal, as compared with that 
of a man, may be not so much weaker as less multi- 
tudinous. Asa rule we remember those things best 
in which we take the greatest interest. This gives to 
man a much wider range of memory than any animal 
can possess, with a proportionately increased area for 
