Clever Hans Part 8

When the belief in success was lacking, of course there was not the requisite amount of concentration which, alone, leads to perceptible expressive movements and thus elicits a successful reaction on the part of the horse.

Mr. Schillings, owing to his great impressionability, remained long under the spell of Mr. von Osten's point of view. Thus I find in the record of the September-Commission that the question "How much is 3 plus 2?" was answered incorrectly by Hans, but he responded correctly the moment Mr. Schillings replaced the word "plus" which was "tabooed", by the word "and". For a long time also he could receive no response to questions put in French until one day he made the discovery that, curiously enough, the animal never responded adequately unless he himself firmly believed in the possibility of success. It is noteworthy that the Count zu Castell, independently of Mr. Schillings, made the same discovery. Mr. Schillings made his curious discovery--which he was unable to interpret, but which aroused some suspicion--on the following occasion. One day--whether accidentally or because his prejudice was temporarily overcome--he commanded; "Dis deux!". Hans responded promptly with 2 taps. He was greatly surprised and believed that Hans had gotten hold of the French by hearing it spoken in his environment. Possibly he understood also "trois" and "quatre"? He put the questions and received correct responses. He asked again, "dix", "vingt", and so on to "soixante". At "soixante-six" he became doubtful. Indeed, Hans failed him. At "quatre-vingt", the game began again. "Cent", again, succeeded.

The old saying that "Faith will move mountains" was verified once more.[U]

[Footnote U: It has been scientifically proven that a number of supposed mystical phenomena, table-moving, table-rapping, and divination by means of the rod, all are the result of involuntary movements made unawares by those concerned, just as in the case of this work with Hans. (We must of course except those not infrequent instances in which the phenomena in question are purposely and fraudulently simulated.) There is this difference, however, that there the thing affected is a lifeless object,--the table or the rod,--here it is a living organism, the horse; hence there the immediate effect of the movement is physical work in the form of energy expended in moving the table, here the movement becomes a visual stimulus. A number of observations which I find in the relevant literature, and which I shall introduce into this chapter, may serve to show how close is the similarity between the two cases, how much depends upon the questioner, and how little really upon the instrument--whether table or horse--which is acted upon.

Two examples will suffice to ill.u.s.trate the significance of belief and of the concentrated attention that results from it. The first is taken from the letters of Father P. Lebrun on the divining rod[26], which appeared in 1696. An old woman once told a treasure-seeker that she had always heard that a treasure was buried at a certain place in the fields. The man, who was known as an expert in the art of using the divining rod, immediately set out to locate the gold.

Lo, and behold, the moment he set foot on the spot described by the old woman, the branch turns downward, and from its movements the man gathers that twelve feet below ground there lies buried some copper, silver and gold. He calls a peasant to dig a pit eleven feet deep, then he sends him away so that no other should get into the secret.

He himself digs a foot deeper, but all in vain, for he finds nothing. Standing in the pit, he again takes up the branch. Again it moves, but this time it points upward, as if to indicate that the treasure had disappeared from the earth. Dismayed, he climbs out of the pit and questions the branch a third time. This time it points downward once more. He climbs back into the pit. Presently he feels the p.r.i.c.k of conscience (for in the 17th century many regarded the dipping of the divining rod as the work of the Devil). Terrified, he exclaims: "O G.o.d, if the thing I am doing here is wrong, then I renounce the Evil One and his rod (s'il y a du mal, je renonce au demon et a la baguette)". Having spoken, he once more takes the rod in hand to test it. It does not move. Horrified, for now there was no longer any doubt that Satan was the cause of its movements, the man makes the sign of the cross and runs away. But he had hardly gone more than two or three hundred paces when the thought strikes him: Is it really true that the branch will no longer move for him?

He throws a coin to the ground, cuts a branch from a bush nearby, and is overjoyed when he notes how it dips down toward the money.

Another example is to be found in a report of the well-known physicist, Ritter[27], of Munich, which appeared during the early part of the 19th century. Ritter, a man with a bent for natural philosophy and metaphysics, describes an instrument which was to replace the divining rod, and which he called "balancier." It was simple enough, consisting of a metal strip that was balanced horizontally upon a pivot, and was supposed to be put into motion in the presence of metals. Ritter used this instrument in his numerous experiments with the Italian Campetti, a man who had achieved a measure of fame in Europe for his ability to discover springs and metals by the use of the divining rod. Carrying the "balancier" on the tip of the middle finger of his left hand, Campetti--whose integrity one cannot cavil at--had to touch repeatedly a plate of zinc or pewter, and had to count aloud the number of touches he made. The following curious law was found to obtain (that was probably suggested to the subject by Ritter without his being aware of it): with the first contact the "balancier" turns to the left, with the second to the right, and with the third it remains at rest.

At 4 it turns once more to the left, at 5 to the right, at 6 it remains at rest, etc. It remained immovable only at the so-called trigonal numbers (3, 6, 9, 15, 21, etc.). Ritter tells us that when Campetti did not really count or did not think of the number, then it would not have any influence whatever upon the action of the instrument. This Ritter ascribes to the agency of electricity (which in the 18th and 19th centuries was made to play very much the same role that Satan had played in the 16th and 17th centuries).

The similarity of these two cases and that of Mr. Schillings is evident. When the questioner of the horse and the bearers of the "balancier" and of the divining rod are confident of success, they succeed. When they do not expect success, they fail.]

Hans's seeming knowledge of the value of coins and cards, of the calendar and the time of day, as well as his ability to recognize persons or their photographs, can now be readily understood. In all of these cases, we had to deal, in so far as knowledge is concerned, only with that of the questioner,--the horse simply tapped the number the questioner had in mind. The meaning which was supposed to be expressed by the tapping never existed as far as Hans was concerned; it was only in the mind of the questioner that the concepts: ace, gold, Sunday, January, were a.s.sociated with "1", etc. The same was true with regard to all other wonderful feats of memory. The sentence: "Brucke und Weg sind vom Feinde besetzt", (The road and the bridge are held by the enemy), which was given to the horse one day and correctly repeated by him on the following day, was not an answer elicited from the horse by means of a question, but rather a system of automatic reactions which were induced by certain involuntary movements of the questioner as stimuli.

Far from showing a wonderful memory in these feats--as is claimed for him by the very non-critical compiler, Zell[28]--Hans, on the contrary, has at his service a remarkably small number of a.s.sociations. For, besides possessing the powers of any ordinary horse, he recognizes only a few meager visual signs. To be sure, we find in the literature a horse that was said to have recognized 1500 signals,[29] but all proof is lacking and the report is so meager that we cannot discover whether these signs were auditory or visual.[V]

[Footnote V: The French investigators Vaschide and Rousseau make a reference to this case, and mistakenly state the number of signals as 1500 instead of 115[30]. Ettlinger[31] takes over this wrong figure and makes the additional mistake of a.s.suming that the reference is to an original investigation made by the two Frenchmen.]

Having thus disposed of all questions concerning the horse's apparent feats of reason and memory, let us turn to those in the field of sensation. We shall begin with vision. That Hans was unable to select colored pieces of cloth merely upon the basis of color quality, without reference to their order, was shown in Chapter II. It would, however, be somewhat hasty to infer color-blindness from this fact, as did Romanes[32] on the basis of similar unsucessful responses on the part of a chimpanzee ("Sally" of the London Zoological Garden). It is much easier to explain the failure of the horse than that of the monkey on the basis of intellectual poverty, a poverty of a.s.sociative activity. It presumably can discriminate between the various colors, but it cannot a.s.sociate with these their names. The existence of chromatic vision in the lower forms is by no means as unquestionable as is a.s.sumed by popular thought. Even teleological considerations which are often brought forward (especially that of the ornamental and protective coloring of so many animals) can never do more than establish a certain probability. For definite proof, we need data given by observation (we have none in this case), or experimental evidence. Such evidence we have, but it is insufficient in quant.i.ty and unfortunately most of it was obtained under inadequate experimental conditions.[W] We know nothing regarding chromatic vision in the horse, though we have often had trained horses which apparently possessed color discrimination. The earliest report of this kind I find in a work published in the year 1573.[36] Here we read that a number of Germans exhibited two horses in Rome which could, upon request of their masters, point out those persons among the spectators who were wearing stockings of any designated color.

The pa.s.sage, "conoscevano i colori", (they recognized the colors,) proves nothing and no one has ever heard, even in modern times, of a horse that actually knew colors.

[Footnote W: All told, there are hardly more than half dozen experimental investigations of the color-sense in mammals,--to speak only of these. Three of them deserve especial mention. One, the work of the American, Kinnaman,[33] on two Rhesus monkeys. Then a brief but careful piece of work by Himstedt and Nagel.[34] These two investigators were able to determine that their trained poodle could distinguish red of any tone or shade from the other colors, and from Professor Nagel I learned that later the tests were extended and the same was shown to be true concerning the blue and the green. And finally there is an investigation which hitherto has been known only from a reference which Professor Dahl,[35] the investigator, himself makes. The work is on a monkey, Cercopithecus (Chlorocebus) griseoviridis Desm. (Professor Dahl has kindly allowed me to look over the records of the experiments. He intends to publish the monograph at an early date.)

All of these investigators arrive at the conclusion that the animals tested by them possess color-sense. The monkey last-mentioned shows one peculiarity: it was unable to distinguish a saturated blue from the black. It will require further tests to clear this up.]

Nor did Hans possess anything like that high degree of visual acuity which had been attributed to him. He was supposed to be able to read easily at a distance small, almost illegible script, which we ourselves could decipher only with the greatest difficulty close at hand. It was also supposed that he could distinguish ten-and fifty-pfennig pieces whose faces had become worn beyond recognition for us. None of these accomplishments have stood the test. We have no reason to believe that Hans can see the objects about him more clearly than other horses, regarding whom one usually a.s.sumes that they receive only vague visual impressions. Horses do not as a rule seem to be near-sighted as is often a.s.serted by the layman, but rather somewhat far-sighted, or if we may believe Riegel,[37] who tested some six hundred horses, they probably have normal vision. But we are told that many horses--and according to some authors all--have an innate imperfection which detracts considerably from the clarity of vision. This imperfection consists in an irregular formation of the sclerotic coat and of the lens of the eye.[38] The two organs do not have the same refraction in all parts. As a result, objective points are not imaged as points upon the retina.

(Hence the name: astigmatism, i. e., "without points", for this disorder.) The retinal image of the object is not only vague, but also distorted.[X]

[Footnote X: There is no justification for the wide-spread belief that the horse which on account of the greater size of his eye (more correctly, on account of the greater focal distance) receives larger retinal images of objects than does the human eye, for that reason also sees objects, larger than we do. Horses' shying is often explained in this way. But the conclusion just mentioned is erroneous. The retinal image is not the perceptual image. It undergoes many transformations within the nervous system itself.]

Many will doubt whether with such imperfect images an animal can react to directives so minute, as we have a.s.serted to be true in the case of Hans. In considering this question we must distinguish between the directives for pointing out colors and the directives for tapping and for head movements on the part of the horse. In pointing out and bringing forth pieces of colored cloth there is involved the perception of an object at rest, viz.: the direction of the questioner who is standing quietly; whereas in the case of responses by means of tapping the stimulus is the horse's perception of the questioner's movements.

Now, the construction of the horse's eye, as described above, is not favorable for the perception of objects (so-called acuity of vision).

This may partly account for the slight success of the horse in those tests in which he was required to select a piece of cloth of a designated color, in so far as these commands were not accompanied by calls or exhortations. Where human observers averaged eighty per cent correct responses (page 135), Hans, under similar conditions was successful in only one-third of the tests. In his errors he was also wider of the mark than were the human observers (page 82). The object perceived, to be sure, is a large one, viz.: the questioner, and he at close range. We must therefore consider more specifically what are the determining factors that make for success or failure of the response.

First of all, the innocent questioner very often did not designate the direction with sufficient clearness. Furthermore, Hans presumably was not able to discriminate sufficiently between the direction of the experimenter's eye and that of his head, which two directions did not always coincide. Finally the horse's attention was often diverted, while he was running toward the piece indicated, by the other pieces lying to the right and to the left, and for this reason the addition of a single piece to the otherwise unchanged row of five pieces tended to decrease greatly the chances of success.

The case is different with the perception of the directive signs for tapping, for nodding and shaking the head, etc., all of which require the perception of movements. This is not necessarily more difficult on account of the imperfect const.i.tution of the tissues that serve for the refraction of light. Some authors even aver that this facilitates the perception of moving objects. This view was first advanced by the excellent ophthalmologist, R. Berlin[39] of Stuttgart. In arriving at this view he was guided by the following considerations. The peculiar form of astigmatism of the lens of the horse's eye, which Berlin has described as "butzenscheibenformig",[Y] because it appears in the form of a series of glossy concentric circles around the lens nucleus, has the property of enlarging the pathway (and with it the rapidity) of moving retinal images. If we take a speculum by means of which a view may be had of the interior of the eye, and fixate a definite point on the retina of the horse, and then make a slight movement of the head horizontally, we find that the point fixated moves--apparently at least--toward the border of the pupil. In a normally constructed eye this seeming movement will be in a straight line, while in the eye of the horse, (according to Berlin), its path is curved, and therefore longer. Berlin believes that the same thing which here occurs in the case of this merely apparent movement, must also happen when an external moving object is imaged on the horse's retina. Its pathway, too, will be curved, and therefore longer, so that if the head of Mr. von Osten moves past the animal's eye, then the image on the horse's retina will take a longer, more circuitous route than it would if the eye were not astigmatic. We cannot, however, immediately conclude from the fact that an objective movement is imaged as being greater in extent on the retina, that it will therefore be more readily perceived by much less that it will appear greater to, the horse, than would be the case if the lens were normally constructed. The visual percept is not immediately dependent upon the retinal processes, for between the two are interpolated complex, inaccessible nervous processes. Still, Berlin believes that he is justified in drawing this conclusion from a number of relevant considerations. Accepting it, he believes that it would be possible for the horse to perceive movements, that for the human eye, which is not subject to this form of astigmatism, would lie below the threshold.

[Footnote Y: "Butzenscheiben" are the small circular panes of green gla.s.s, used in leaded windows in early days. They are high in the middle (hence the name: "Butze," a protuberance) with a number of concentric circles around the central elevation.--Translator.]

This theory, the simplicity of which certainly must make a strong appeal, has been adopted by a number of well-known investigators (Schleich[40], Konigshofer[41]). If we also could accept it, then Hans's phenomenal power of perceiving the movements of objects would be explained. But doubts arise which restrain us. Even if we were to accept Berlin's view in general, we should still come upon the following difficulties. In the first place, it is questionable whether the peculiar form of astigmatism mentioned is indeed as common as he supposes.[Z] The references in the literature are exceedingly meager on this point. In order to make a few tests at least, I undertook to examine nine horses with the aid of Dr. R. Simon, oculist, to whom I am greatly beholden for the a.s.sistance given in these and other tests to be mentioned presently. In not one of the nine cases did we discover anything like the curved deflection which is supposed to be the sign of the form of astigmatism in question. But in order to test objectively whether Berlin's a.s.sumption were justified, we examined in the laboratory fresh specimens taken from two horses. The eyes were fastened in a frame in what corresponded to their normal position. Their posterior spherical wall (i. e., their respective retinal surface) was replaced by a piece of ground gla.s.s. On a spherical surface linear movements of a point of light are always imaged as curves, no matter what the shape of the lens forming the image may be. (For a more detailed statement see page 170, at close of note.) Since, however, our investigation had to do only with those curves which were due to the qualities peculiar to the lens, we had to replace the spherical by a plane projection surface. In front of the eye thus modified a strong light was placed at such a distance that the image of it, produced on the improvised back of the eye by the cornea and the lens, was a sharply defined point of light. Now, when the source of light was moved, the point of light would also move on the gla.s.s plate. Sitting at some distance behind the eye, we observed the movements of this point through a telescope. Thus we became witnesses of what happens upon the horse's retina when a moving object pa.s.ses in front of his eye. Although we saw the point of light move through relatively long distances both horizontally and vertically, no sort of deflection in its pathway could be noted. Berlin's exposition does not hold true for the eyes of the horses, either living or dead, which were examined by us.

[Footnote Z: Since no opportunity was given us to examine Hans's eyes we do not know what their condition is in this respect. Though it would have been interesting to know, it would hardly make any difference in the views presented. If Hans should prove to be either far or near-sighted, then, if we are to make any supposition at all, it would be that the defect could not be very great, since near sightedness exceeding 2 or 3 diopters and far-sightedness exceeding one diopter is seldom found in the case of the horse. According to Mr. von Osten, Hans at one time manifested a tendency to shy easily.

Be this as it may, for little could be concluded from it, since in many extremely shy horses, no kind of visual imperfection can be discovered.]

But in the case of some of the horses in whom Berlin had seen the phenomenon for which we sought in vain, he himself tells us, the deflection was very slight. In that case, it would appear, no great advantage would be gained along the lines indicated. But even a.s.suming the degree of deflection to be very great, his theory goes to pieces on the very point it was supposed to explain. A concrete example will make this clear. If Mr. von Osten, standing two feet away from the horse, raised his head 1/5 millimeter (which figure by no means represents the extreme values that were obtained), then in the horse's retinal image every point of the man's head would move through a distance of 0.0025 millimeter--a.s.suming the horse's eye to be free from astigmatism and a.s.suming its focal distance to be 25.5 millimeters. If, however, other conditions remaining the same, we presuppose an extreme form of astigmatism, one in which the path of the retinal image is not a straight line, but is deflected into a semicircle, then each point would pa.s.s through a distance of nearly 0.004 millimeter. If the sensitive retinal elements have a diameter of 0.002 millimeter (as Berlin, somewhat inexactly, states), then from two to four elements would be stimulated in case there were no astigmatic deflection. But in case the deflection did take place, it would not necessarily involve more elements, as can be seen by making a simple graph; indeed we can imagine cases in which the circuitous path would involve even fewer elements than the straight one. And finally, when the movement which the horse is to perceive, does not occur in a straight line but in the form of a curve, (which will generally be the rule), then the astigmatism will tend in many cases to decrease the curvature of the image's path on the retina, and sometimes even obviate it entirely. In all these cases, on Berlin's own theory, the perception of the movements would be hindered rather than aided.[AA]

[Footnote AA: For the benefit of specialists I would say the following in addition to the more general remarks just made. For the most part, the determinations of refraction made on the eye of the horse are still rather unreliable. In sciascopy there is a dispute among investigators concerning ambiguous shadows, and in the use of the refraction-ophthalmoscope no definite region of the eye's background has been adhered to by the various investigators. It appears that Riegel, whose diligent researches mentioned on page 164 were published in 1904, knew nothing concerning the round area in the horse's eye, discovered by I. Zurn[42] in 1902. Also, if so great a degree of astigmatism is really the rule as is emphasized especially by Hirschberg[43] and Berlin,[44] then the simple refractive index usually given--sometimes within a half diopter--would be meaningless. Berlin[45] and Bayer[46] believe the vagueness of the retinal image resulting from the astigmatism, is offset by this: that the oval pupil functions as a stenopaic slit.

In view of the width of the horse's pupil this appears to me to be rather hypothetical.

Concerning Berlin's theory of deflecting astigmatism I would say the following: Of the two ophthalmoscopic signs mentioned as being characteristic of this form of astigmatism,--the concentric circles and the arcuate deflection of the pathway of the fixated points,--when there is a movement of the eye of the observer (or of the eye observed), according to Berlin the former is not so constant as the latter. So far as I know, the concentric ring formation is mentioned only by Bayer[47] and Riegel,[48] and is said to occur princ.i.p.ally in horses with myopic vision--and hence, relatively, in a minority of cases. Judging from the particulars, we are inclined to believe that a case of "Butzenscheiben"-lens reported by Schwendimann[48_a_] is in reality a case of senile sclerosis.

Berlin repeatedly warns us against mistaking the one for the other.[48_b_] The arcuate deflection, on the other hand, has not been mentioned elsewhere as a personal observation. In Berlin's calculation[49] of the increase in the extent of the retinal pathway an ambiguity has crept in. He says that "in the astigmatic eye there are stimulated 207 times as many nervous elements as would be stimulated in the ideally normal eye." It ought to read "207 more"

instead of "207 times as many." And this number holds only for the one case computed by Berlin, and under the specific a.s.sumption that exactly [Greek: pi]/2 times the normal number of elements were stimulated (571 instead of 364). Therefore the general statement which Bayer[50] makes in his text-book, that according to Berlin's evaluation "207 times more nervous elements" are stimulated in the astigmatic eye than in the non-astigmatic one, does not hold true.

Closing this note, a few remarks concerning the experiments made by Dr. Simon and myself. All of the nine horses were tested for the vertical image by means of the ophthalmoscope. In most cases Wolff's electric speculum was used. Atropine was not employed.--For the laboratory tests the adipose and the muscular tissues were removed from the eye-ball and the rear part of the bulb cut away. The front part, containing the cornea and the lens, was fastened over one opening of a metal cylinder which was closed at the other end by means of a disc of ground gla.s.s. The whole, approximately as long as a horse's eye, was filled with a normal salt solution whose refractive index (1.336) corresponds quite closely with that of the vitreous humor of the horse's eye. The pressure from within was regulated so that on the one hand it was not dimmed and yet on the other there were no wrinkles in the cornea. The source of light--the filament of a Nernst lamp--was moved about in a plane 120 cm.

distant from the eye and perpendicular to the optic axis. It was moved through the point of intersection as well as at various distances from it. Movement in horizontal and vertical directions was in each case along lines 150 centimeters in length, which would correspond to an angle of vision of not less than 64. The pathway of the imaged point was controlled by means of the cross-hairs of the telescope. If in the same way we observe through the sclerotic of an intact eye-bulb a point of light falling upon the retina and shining through the sclerotic and choroid (which is not difficult when we use an intense light), then to the observer its pathway will, of course, appear to be deflected convexly toward the periphery,--and the deflection will appear the greater, the farther the point of light is removed from the optic axis.]

But to come now to the most pertinent objection. We saw that Berlin's whole train of thought rested upon the a.s.sertion that it made no difference whether we regarded by means of the speculum the seeming movement of a fixed retinal point, or whether the image of an external moving object is pa.s.sing over the horse's retina. As a matter of fact, however, these two processes are very different from one another. In moving the mirror, with its small opening we are looking through ever changing portions of the horse's lens,--testing it out, as it were. The horse, on the other hand, sees with all parts of the lens simultaneously, in so far as the lens is not covered by the iris. The arcuate deflection, which is nothing but a registration of the difference in the indices of refraction of the different parts of the lens used consecutively, might thus be formed for the observer using the mirror, but never for the horse. For these reasons we cannot conclude that the kind of astigmatism described can really increase the horse's acuity in the perception of movements.

Since the light-refracting apparatus of the horse's eye does not offer a satisfactory explanation for the extraordinary keenness of visual perception possessed by the Osten horse, we must go a step further and ask whether it may not perhaps be found in the part immediately sensitive to light, the retina. That portion really would seem to be adapted to the perception of movements of minimal extent, and for this reason: it is more than three times as great in extent as the human retina, and the horse's retinal images are likewise larger owing to the position of the nodal point. The cells of the retina that are sensitive to light, the rods and cones, might therefore be correspondingly larger than those of the human eye, without thereby making the whole organ less efficient than the human eye. But the most recent measurements[51] have shown that the rods and cones of the horse's eye are more minute than ours. a.s.suming that, in the case of the horse, as is presumably the case in human vision, the transition of a stimulus from one retinal cell to the next already in itself induces a sensation of movement, then the horse ought indeed be extraordinarily keen in the perception of moving objects (provided that the horse's more minute cells are packed just as closely as in the human retina). And besides, there are two specially adapted areas within the retina of the horse. The "band"

("streifenformige Area") which was discovered fifteen years ago by Chievitz,[52] is a strip of 1 to 1-1/2 millimeters in width, traversing the entire retina horizontally, and is noteworthy on account of its structure and probably, too, on account of its greater efficiency. It may have something to do with the accomplishments of the Osten horse; but in how far it would be hard to say. The other noteworthy portion of the horse's retina is the "round area" discovered some four years ago, located at the rear outer end of the "band", and it is the best-equipped part of the horse's retina and corresponds to the area of clearest vision, the yellow spot, in the human eye. But this round area need not come in for consideration by us, for its location would indicate that it is used in binocular vision, that is, seeing with both eyes.[53] But in all our experiments the Osten horse observed only with one eye. That does not mean, however, that under other circ.u.mstances the round area may not be of very great importance.

In the present state of our knowledge, all attempts at explanation are, of course, of the nature of hypotheses. If further investigations should disclose this explanation to be untenable, then we would either have to suppose some unknown power in the eye of the horse,[AB] or else seek a cause in the animal's brain. Further experiments on other horses would be necessary in order to discover whether the species as a whole possesses this ability or whether only certain ones are thus endowed.

The former is of course more probable. In this particular case conditions were unusually favorable for the development of this ability. We must bear in mind that in all probability Mr. von Osten's movements very gradually became as minute as they are now, and that therefore Hans at first learned to react to such as were relatively coa.r.s.e. Furthermore, his practice extended throughout four years and during this time it was his sole occupation. Without specific predisposition, however, all this practice would have been utterly futile. We can also readily appreciate how indispensable in the struggle for existence a well-developed power of perceiving moving objects must be to horses (and most other animals) living in their natural condition and habitat, in order to be aware of the approach of enemies, or, in the case of carnivora, the presence of prey. In view of all these considerations we can readily see how it was possible that the horse, perhaps in spite of rather defective vision, could react with precision to movement-stimuli which escaped observation by human eyes.

[Footnote AB: Konigshofer, who as we have already said, seconds the explanation given by the ophthalmologist Berlin (and who confounds "Butzenscheiben" astigmatism with the common, so-called regular form), believes[54] that not only astigmatism but also the shape of the blind-spot of the eye must be taken into consideration. This portion of the retina, where the fibres of the optic nerve enter the eye (and called "blind-spot" because there are no cells there that are sensitive to light) is very nearly circular in man, but differs in shape in the different species of animals. Konigshofer thought he had discovered that a relatively elongated blind spot was favorable to keenness of vision. If we place the mammalia in series on the basis of their relative keenness of vision, he says, we would find that this series is identical with the one in which they are grouped with reference to the form of the blind-spot from the circular up to the most elongated. (In such a series the marmot takes the place of honor.)

This exposition is not very satisfactory, however. We cannot be sure what he means by "keenness of vision" ("scharfaugigkeit"). Is it visual acuity in the usual sense of the term (as is said in one of his pa.s.sages), or keenness in the perception of the movements of objects, (this would appear to be his real meaning), or both at the same time. But whatever the significance he may put into the term, any such attempt at grouping the lower forms must prove unsatisfactory from the very start on account of the scant data which we possess on visual perception in animals. The experiences of the hunt upon which Konigshofer partly bases his view, are entirely inadequate for such a purpose. This much is certain, that the Osten horse, in spite of a blind-spot which, though somewhat oval, is by no means very elongated, possesses an extraordinary acuity in the perception of movements. Even if the parallelism mentioned by Konigshofer were really shown to exist, it would not explain the matter until it were also shown in what way keenness of vision is dependent upon the shape of the blind-spot,--a portion of the eye which is not immediately operative in the visual sensation at all.]

We can understand also the horse's never-flagging attentiveness when we recall that self-preservation prompts eternal vigilance over against all that is going on in the animal's environment. (In the case of Hans, hunger was at first the motive; later, habit did the work.) Furthermore, the lower form is not hindered in giving itself over to its sense-impressions by the play of abstract thought which tends so strongly to direct inward our psychic energy,--at least, in the case of the cultured.

Nevertheless, Hans still remains a phenomenon not only in excelling all his critics in the power of observation, but also in that he is the first of his species, in fact the first animal, in which this extraordinary perceptual power has been proven experimentally to be present. It has long been known[55] that horses could be trained to respond to cues in the form of slight movements, which remained unnoticed by the layman, and this fact has been made use of by circus trainers to its fullest extent. But such signs, I have discovered, are without exception, of a far coa.r.s.er sort than those we have here described, and they can be instantly detected by the practised observer.

Nor was it known to professional trainers that it was possible for the master to direct a horse to any point of the compa.s.s simply by means of the quiet posture of the body. For this reason it was believed that no signs could possibly be involved in the color-selecting-tests (cf.

Supplement III, page 255). In this we have the support of some of our experts, as is witnessed by the following extract from a letter of his Excellency Count G. Lehndorff, one of our best hippological authorities, who at one time carefully examined the Osten horse. (The letter was addressed to Mr. Schillings, and I have permission of both gentlemen to use it). In it he says: "If the author's statements, in which you also have concurred, are correct, and if, as a matter of fact, the horse really does react to such minute movements as are absolutely imperceptible to the human observer, then we have indeed something quite new, for hitherto no one would have believed that horses can perceive movements which man cannot. But I am even more surprised by the explanation of the color-selecting feats.--This too, is something absolutely new. One would not have deemed it possible that a horse could do anything of the kind simply by using the posture of a man's body as a cue to which it could react with such precision."

And yet, even though both facts were new concerning the horse and had not hitherto been proven experimentally regarding any other species, nevertheless something of this sort has been known concerning the dog for some time. His ability to single out an object upon which his master had intently fixed his gaze, was made the basis of a special form of training, called "eye-training,"[56] nearly one hundred years ago. The dog was taught to focus constantly upon his master's eyes and then upon command to select the object which he, the master, had been fixating.

Such a dog has been described by the naturalists A. and K. Muller.[57]

But the master of the dog, unlike Mr. von Osten, would not permit anyone else to work with the animal, and the two brothers, recognizing the trick, were justified in adding that "the whole affair aimed at deceiving the public, and the dog's reputation was but a means of making money". The success of such exhibitions appeared furthermore, to depend upon the close proximity of the trainer and the dog, whereas the direction of the head (and even of the body) could very probably be perceived at greater distances also. At least we learn from a reputable source that in the hunt, dogs can perceive from the mere posture of their master, what direction he intends to take.[58]

But a still more curious fact is this, that dogs, too, learn--evidently spontaneously--to react to the minimal involuntary expressive movements of their master. The first example mentioned in the literature on the subject is that of an English bull-dog called Kepler, belonging to the English astrophysicist, Sir William Huggins.[59] We are told that this dog seemingly could solve the most difficult problems, such as extracting square roots and the like. The numbers were indicated by barking,--thus one bark was for one, two barks for two, etc. Every correct solution was rewarded with a piece of cake. Huggins states explicitly that he gave no signals voluntarily, but that he was convinced that the dog could see from the questioner's face, when he must cease barking, for he would never for an instant divert his gaze during the process. Huggins was unable, however, to discover the nature of the effective signs. This satisfactory, though still unproven, explanation has been accepted by specialists, among them Sir John Lubbock.[60] I, too, regard this dog as a predecessor of our Hans.

A similar case is reported by Mr. Hugo Kretschmer, a writer of Breslau, in the "Schlesische Zeitung" of August 21, 1904. To him I am beholden for a detailed written statement, which he has kindly permitted me to use in this connection. The gentleman named, first trained his dog to ring the table-bell, and this, by pressing the dog's paw upon the bell-b.u.t.ton. When the dog had learned to do this independently, his master tried to teach him the rudiments of numbers, in such a way that the animal was to give one ring of the bell for the number 1, two for 2, etc. But these attempts failed utterly and had to be abandoned. But Mr.

Kretschmer had noticed that he was able to get the dog to ring any number which he, Mr. Kretchmer, might decide upon. (Success was always rewarded by a bit of bread and b.u.t.ter.) At first Mr. Kretschmer tried to imagine vividly only the final number, but failed thereby to elicit correct responses from the dog. But he did succeed when he tried making a series of separate volitions. Thus for the number 5, he would "will"

each separate push of the b.u.t.ton on the part of the dog. Even so, however, he never got beyond 9, for then the dog would become impatient and would ring the bell continuously. Anything that diverted the dog's attention, such as noises, etc., also entailed failure. In these tests master and dog had faced each other, each gazing steadfastly at the other. Mr. Kretchmer was convinced, however, that the dog was not guided by any sort of sign, but rather by suggestion. He based his belief on the following two observations. After some practice, he says, the tests were also successful when he did not look at the dog, but stood back to back with it, or when he screened himself from the dog's view by stepping to one side behind a curtain. The tests were unsuccessful, on the other hand, whenever he was mentally fatigued or had taken some alcoholic drink. The arguments do not appear to me to be adequate. If he turned his back upon the dog and no other observer was present, he had no means of knowing whether the dog did not, after all, peer around to get a peep at him. If others who knew the desired number, were present, the dog might have gotten his cues from them. And there may be some doubt whether the curtain adequately served the purpose for which it was intended. At any rate, it was added that all attempts to influence the dog from an adjoining room--which would thus exclude effectively all visual signs--were utter failures. I am also strengthened rather than weakened in my belief, by the second argument which Mr. Kretschmer makes, viz.: that mental fatigue or the use of alcohol on the part of the questioner tends to make the result unsatisfactory. We noted a similar effect in the case of the horse (page 150), where a disturbance of the "rapport" between the questioner and the horse was invoked by some by way of explanation. The facts were explained by us much more simply. We attributed the result to the close correlation between the type of mental concentration and the nature of the expressive movements--a correlation which we have shown experimentally to exist. I cannot, therefore, subscribe to the view that this dog did not require either visual or other sensory signs. The tests which were made for the purpose of strengthening that view, are on a par, I believe, with those mentioned on page 45. And since auditory, olfactory, and other stimuli, though not impossible, still are improbable, I believe that our Hans, Huggins's dog, and the one belonging to Mr. Kretschmer, differ from one another only in this, that the first taps, the second barks, and the third presses a bell-b.u.t.ton.

And finally I have access to a letter from the Rhine Province in which there is a brief account of a dog that would promptly obey any command that was given without a sound and supposedly without the accompaniment of the slightest kind of gesture. It is specially mentioned that the animal steadily watched its master during these tests. The perception of the slightest involuntary expressive movements is in all probability the secret in this case also. Here, too, suggestion has been invoked by way of explanation, but there was not the slightest attempt made to find for it a more specific foundation, and we cannot suppress an objection based on the matter of principle. It is inc.u.mbent upon anyone who uses a term so ambiguous, to define what content he desires to have put into it. If he does not do this, he is giving us, instead of a concept, a bare word, instead of bread, a stone.

While we must reject the explanation based on suggestion,[AC] we believe, on the other hand, that we have here again, evidence of the presence of visual signs, given unwittingly and involuntarily, just as I am sure that they were involved in the two preceding cases, and similarly in the case of the Huggins dog. Since the effective signs were discoverable in none of these canine predecessors of Hans, an investigation would be desirable, based upon the insight gained as a result of these experiments upon Mr. von Osten's horse. Unfortunately this is impossible, since the dogs in question are dead. But others like them undoubtedly exist in many places. We might mention that when Hans first came under the limelight of public attention, there was also frequent reference to the Huggins dog, but he soon dropped out of the discussion again.[63] And this for two reasons. The dog never took his gaze from his master and appeared to be entirely dependent upon him in his reactions. Hans, on the other hand, seemed to give evidence of a high degree of independence and never appeared to look at the questioner. But we know now that, though he was never dependent upon the will of his master, he, too, abjectly hung upon the man's involuntary movements and never for a moment lost him from view. But since the horse is able to observe with one eye alone, and needed to direct only it and not the entire head toward the questioner, in order to focus comfortably, one could not conclude as to his line of vision from the direction of the head. Since, furthermore, in the horse the pupil is hardly distinguishable from the darkly pigmented iris and since the white sclerotic is hidden by the eyelids, except when the eye is turned very much, it is difficult to determine what direction the eye is taking. I once purposely stepped backward to the horse's flank, so that he had to turn his eye far back and thus the outer border of the iris and the white sclerotic coat became visible and all doubt concerning the line of vision was removed. This doubt could never arise in the case of the dog, the median plane of whose head is always directed toward the object fixated, and Zborzill is justified in saying, as he does, in his discussion of training of the kind mentioned on page 177, "But any careful observer can immediately guess the manner in which such a dog has been trained."[64] If Hans had chanced to possess so-called "gla.s.s-eyes"--in which the dark pigment is wholly or partly lacking, so that the black pupil is clearly defined against the lighter background,--then no doubt could ever have arisen concerning the direction of the eye, and Hans never would have come to be regarded as the "clever" Hans.

[Footnote AC: I can find examples of supposed suggestion in the case of animals given only by Rouhet.[61] He says that by means of suggestion he taught a half-year old half-blooded mare-colt which he had raised himself, to fetch and carry, and this in a very short time. In order to indicate to the colt what was wanted, Rouhet would concentrate with his whole mind upon the object intended (a watch), and at the same time he would bend forward slightly. In the third test, that is at the end of fifteen minutes, he had accomplished his purpose, and in the tenth lesson, no more mistakes occurred. The colt would fail to respond, however, as soon as he refrained from making any gestures, or was in a laissez faire frame of mind, or when he thought of other things. He therefore believes that there must have been some kind of immediate, though inexplicable, connection between the brain of the trainer and that of the horse. I think the explanation is evident: the connection was not as he thought, an immediate one, but arising through the mediation of the man's att.i.tude ("att.i.tude un peu baissee"), and of his movements ("gestes"), both resulting from his intense concentration ("tension de la pensee").

In general we may say that, no matter what content we may wish to put into the term "suggestion," not a single fact has since come to light which would justify, and much less demand, the application of the term to lower forms, unless we would expand the definition of the term to the extent of comprising every kind of command, every arousal of ideas, whatsoever. But it would then be nothing but a new name for old knowledge[62] and would lose all explanatory value.

(Hypnotism, so-called, in the case of horses, I shall discuss elsewhere in another connection.)]

After the publication of the December report, Hans acquired a reputation for excellence in thought-reading and thus the discussion of thought-reading among animals in general became once more the order of the day. That is to say that many of our domestic animals are--like the human mind-reader (a la c.u.mberland),--supposed to have the ability to infer the thoughts of their masters from slight, involuntary movements.

They are thus aware when the feeding hour approaches, when they may go out in the open, etc. They also appear to be aware that their welfare lies in our hands, and therefore would seem to have a vital interest in divining our intentions and our wishes. Not only our spoken words, but also numberless movements--usually without our knowing it and often contrary to our desire--speak a clear language. As is well said by the American neuropathologist, Beard,[65] (who first explained the phenomenon of thought-reading, on the basis of the perception of very minute muscular jerks, and therefore called it "muscle-reading" or "body-reading"): "Every horse that is good for anything is a muscle-reader; he reads the mind of his driver through the pressure on the bit,--though not a word of command is uttered." We know that in the case of perfectly trained horses the rider's mere thought of the movement which he expects the horse to make, is seemingly sufficient to cause the animal to execute it.[AD] Such cases are of course very much like that of our Hans, excepting that instead of visual signs they involve aids of a mechanical nature, which, however, does not alter the general principle, since both of them are of the nature of sensory stimulation. But we must not overlook the essential difference between this so-called thought-reading on the part of animals and that which is done by man. The human thought-reader can interpret movements, for he is familiar with the ideas which are their source. Thus when at the second tap, I notice a very slight jerk of the subject's head, and a stronger one at the fifth tap, I infer that he thought of the problem 2+3=5.

While the experimenter thus cannot be said to read thoughts, he still infers them. The animal, on the other hand, we may be reasonably sure, draws no such inferences. In its conscious life it remains ever on the sensory level. If we could ask Hans about it, he would probably answer: "As soon as my master stoops forward, I begin to tap; as soon as he moves, I stop. The thing which induces me to act thus is the carrot which is given me; what it is that induces my master to make his movements, I do not know."--It is therefore erroneous to believe that animals require the power of abstract thinking in order to utilize the signs which are consciously or unconsciously given them, as is argued by Goldbeck[68] when he says with reference to the training for visual signs, which we have already mentioned before: "There the dog has consciously interpreted the visual impression in terms of the conclusion that he is expected to bring forth the leaf indicated." Nor was there any justification for the critic who thought he could put the essence of the report of December, given in Supplement IV, into the following words: "He (Hans) showed that he has the power of attention, can draw logical conclusions, and can communicate the result of his thinking,--and all this independently." Yet none of this had been a.s.serted. The whole thing may be explained satisfactorily by means of a process of simple a.s.sociation established between the signs observed in the master and certain reactions on the part of the horse. The fact that the movements made were so exquisitely minute does not change the matter in the least. Such signs call for a high degree of sensory keenness and great concentration of attention, but by no means an "extremely high intelligence."