these experiments Rolf's mistress was present. On the same day
apparently Dr. Gruber and Dr. Wilser interviewed Rolf in the absence of
his mistress and also tried unseen experiments. The dog, however, paid
no attention but gaped impolitely, and after many remonstrances brought
out the following sentence, "wholly unexpected and astonishing to all
present":--"Very many pictures seen and said what they are with
Ziegler (who had been with him two days before). It is enough. Will not
say any more what it is. . . . . All men give me the hump." We may
sympathise perhaps, but we shall not agree with Dr. Wilser that in this
remark obviously nobody could have helped him. He then went on to
describe a picture correctly as a fat pig, but this picture--here said to
have been shown in the absence of his mistress--corresponds precisely with
one of the unseen experiments described by Dr. Gruber. Finally, after
returning to his mistress, Rolf gave some beautiful proofs of his capacity.

It follows that, in fact, experiments in the absence of his mistress, the
answer to which was unknown to the experimenters, failed. Instead of
performing them the dog produced this ridiculous sentence which substi-
tuted astonishment and laughter for enquiry. Monsieur Claparéde
(" Claparéde et Des Bancels," Archives de Psychologie, XIII. p. 377),
who attempted unseen experiments, found, as a careful observer would,
considerable difficulty in satisfying himself as to the conditions, but
finally succeeded in so satisfying himself in two cases, in one of
which the dog gave a correct description of a picture, in the other
a vague one. As to this success, Monsieur Claparéde says judiciously:
"We affirm that Mdme. Moekel did not look at the pictures, and
we believe that it would have been very difficult to see them even
involuntarily." But affirmation is not a proof, and this proof would be
necessary to secure the experiment all its value. Monsieur Claparéde
wished to continue the experiments the next day. Rolf, in the meantime,
had been taken ill. He concludes that his observations did not suffice to
establish the facts proposed to be verified. "Without doubt the experi-
ments that we report seem to attest in the dog the possibility of a spon-
taneous speech, and would demonstrate its real existence if they had been
executed in conditions which could defy criticism. But we cannot offer
them as entirely satisfactory in this respect. We are obliged to insist, on
the other hand, that Rolf, sympathetic as he is, does not, under ordinary
circumstances, as far as we have the means of judging, pass the level of a
dog reputed to be intelligent, and that under the tests to which he is con-
strained he often shows signs of marked ennui." This is but a cold criti-
cism to follow the enthusiastic article of Professor Mackenzie ( Archives
de Psychologie, XIII. p. 379). The authors add that they had wished
to show Rolf a card saying, "There is some sugar for you behind the
drawing-room door." This test, which it may be agreed would have been a
most decisive one, was prevented by Rolf's indisposition.

-462-