THINKING ANIMALS 161 



I feel it incumbent upon me to recall that I myself saw 

 Rolf on two or three occasions behave in this same ap- 

 parently mechanical way with his mistress (Mrs. Moekel) 

 (n), whose annoyance thereat seemed so real that I felt 

 certain that it was not feigned. From Neumann's point of 

 view this would be incomprehensible since he makes use 

 of the argument from the supposed absolute automatism 

 under the impression that it had taken place in Rolf with 

 him, Neumann, alone, but not with the Moekels. Here, 

 then, it is clear that the intelligence is, or at least that 

 it is also, "in others." 



But whatever value we may attach to Neumann's 

 experiment, it appears to me sufficiently clear that the 

 supposition of an absolutely mechanically passive 

 process in the animal will not hold as a sufficient 

 explanation of the whole of the facts related by Miss 

 Kindermann, nor will it hold with regard to what 

 science certainly seems to me to be compelled to 

 admit in the case of the Elberfeld horses, which (as 

 is known) " worked " magnificently without contact 

 with anyone, tapping their replies on a board, com- 

 pletely isolated on the ground, and even when all 

 alone in their stable with the one door tightly closed 

 and all the spectators outside. The spectators heard 

 and observed the rapped answers of the horses (for 

 example, to written questions) through a little glass 

 window. Neither will it hold with regard to the many 

 experiments made, some also by myself, by means of 

 requests, pictures, questions, presented to the horses 

 in such a way as to be unknown to everyone, including 

 the experimenter. Besides, the animals at times 

 gave spontaneous communications. This Assagioli 

 and I, and many others, have observed even without 

 the presence of Krall and of members of the Moekel 

 family. Miss Kindermann also gives some of Lola's 

 replies tapped on the arm of a friend of the authoress, 



