EXPLANATION OF OBSERVATIONS 195 



remained perfectly quiet. (This is as it was in the tests, 

 mentioned on page 71, in which, of two experimen- 

 ters, one started the horse tapping, and the other stopped 

 him.~i Mr. von Osten very probably lost patience after 

 Hans had seemingly given the wrong response twice, 

 and thereupon came nearer to the horse and thus by 

 monopolizing its attention — so as to exclude Prof. Schil- 

 lings — he was able to get the respanse so ardently 

 'desired,* When, in tests such as theSe, two stoppers 



* General Noizet ™ has left us a story of the middle of the last century, 

 which in essential detail corresponds closely with the one just given. 

 The scene is a French chateau and the hero is — a rapping table, highly 

 prized on account of the intelligent answers it could give. Seated about 

 it were a number of ladies and at the other end of the room sat a French 

 savant, a member of the Academy. The ladies requested him to put a 

 simple mathematical question to the table, and complying with their 

 request, he asked for the cube root of 4. None of the ladies who sat 

 about the table knew the solution ; the table unhesitatingly gave 6 raps. 

 This answer was refused as incorrect. The table was asked to try again, 

 and again it wrapped 6. For this it was bitterly reproached. Hereupon 

 the questioner, who during the whole time had remained in his place at 

 the other end of the room, came forward with the confession that the 

 table was innocent, that he had made a mistake. He had asked for the 

 cube root of 4, but had really meant to ask for the cube of that number, 

 viz., 64, and the table had as a matter of fact given the first numeral of 

 that number. 



One is immediately struck by the analogy between this case and that 

 of Professor Schillings. In both cases those immediately concerned 

 (the women in the one, Mr. von Osten in the other) believe that a wrong 

 answer is being given repeatedly. The cause of the error lies in a per- 

 son who seemingly is not concerned with the response. (The French- 

 man asked the question, but did not sit at the table. Professor Schillings 

 sounded the notes, but it was Mr. von Osten who got the horse to tap.) 

 In both instances the questioner asks one thing, but had something else 

 in mind. (With the Frenchman it was a slip of the tongue ; Mr. Schil- 

 lings did it purposely.) And finally, in both cases the response cor- 

 responds not to the question that has been asked, but to that which has 

 been thought, so that, though seemingly wrong, the responses of both 



