THE PLAY OF ANIMALS. 121 



way the " play " goes on until the victim really dies 

 and is devoured. I was formerly of the opinion that 

 the instinct here called out should not be regarded as 

 play at all, but had an entirely different meaning. The 

 explanation once suggested by G. Jaeger — namely, that 

 it was done for the purpose of improving the flavor 

 (as connoisseurs think that hunted game is especially 

 good) — does not appear probable, though it can hardly 

 be proved to be impossible. There may be some other 

 reason unknown to us for this phenomenon which ex- 

 cludes it from the category of plays, but it is generally 

 regarded as belonging there. Darwin unhesitatingly 

 enumerates it among other plays,* and Scheitlin says of 

 the cat : " She lets the mouse loose again and again in 

 order to catch it each time, and plays with it unmerci- 

 fully. Mouse and rolling ball are all alike to her, as the 

 real and the toy beetle are to the child." f Even if this 

 be true, there is still a difficulty. Granting that the ani- 

 mal sees no difference between the living and the lifeless, 

 how are we to explain the awakening of playfulness in 

 the very act of slaying, and so strongly as to hold in 

 check that instinct, which is so powerful in a beast of 

 prey? 



The whole thing is usually ascribed to a natural in- 

 stinct for cruelty. Even Romanes says, " The feelings 

 that prompt a cat to torture a captured mouse can only, 

 I think, be assigned to the category to which by com- 

 mon consent they are ascribed — delight in torturing 

 for torture's sake." J 



If this is true it is undoubtedly a play. The dispo- 

 sition to cruelty would explain the tendency to play at 



* The Descent of Man, ii, p. 52. 

 f Thierseelenkunde, ii, p. 222. 

 % Animal Intelligence, p. 413. 



