THE QUESTION OF POSSIBLE INFLUENCE 99 



been Frieda, a young girl who had been studying farm- 

 ing with me, and that this was the name Lola was 

 about to rap out. So I discounted the " g " and the 

 " no." and said : " It should be ' f ' shouldn't 

 it ? " (note : g = 17, f = 16.) Whereupon Lola 

 continued and rapped Frieda. I then looked out 

 and saw to my astonishment that it was Guste, a 

 new maid who had been in the house about a week. 

 I said to Lola at once : " You were wrong, it was not 

 Frieda, but the new maid what is her name ? " Lola 



began again " ..." and again added "no . . ." 



" Don't you know her name ? " I inquired but Lola 

 replied " yes ! " I turned the matter over in my mind, 

 wondering how she had come to rap " Frieda " instead 

 of " Guste," and finally said to her : Why did you 

 give me a wrong answer, saying Frieda when it vras 

 Guste ? " and Lola responded with, " You think ! " 

 " What ? " said I, " Did you feel what I was think- 

 ing ? " " Yes." " And do you always feel what 

 I think ? " " Yes." 



This was something quite new, but I explained it 

 to myself, and my view has proved to be correct in all 

 subsequent tests undertaken by me. It is this : 

 Dogs are susceptible to thought-transference also, that 

 they are more particularly open to this when tired and 

 when lazy. Further they are open to such thought- 

 transference even when not actually aware of the question 

 as for instance, in the present case, where it was a 

 matter of the new servant's name, for here Lola had been 

 able to "tap" my thoughts with respect to what was 

 familiar to her (i.e. the name of the other maid) but 

 (and this is the most important point) a dog cannot 

 receive impressions in respect of matters of which it has 

 no knowledge ! 



For example, here Lola could not spell " Guste " 



