PSYCHICAL ANTECEDENTS OF SCIENCE 179

We well recollect having specially questioned Sally's

keeper as to whether she ever pointed to any object or

made use of any gesture with the evident purpose of calling

attention to some fact or passing occurrence.

Although he was well disposed to extol the powers of

his charge so far as truth would permit, he distinctly

aosured us that it did not do so. If anyone came in with

a gun Sally would show extreme terror, but she never

pointed to it, or by gesture called the keeper's attention

to the dreaded object. We were unable to see or hear

anything which rendered it possible to attribute to this

very interesting animal a psychical nature of a higher kind

than that possessed by other beasts. It appeared to us to

have the same kind of powers they possessed, though

possibly somewhat higher in degree. But this, surely, is

just what we might have anticipated.

We may sum up the conclusions at which we have arrived

as follows : The minds of animals are analogous to ours, but

the analogy is expressed, as it were, on a lower plane. They

are astonished, but do not know it ; things recur to them

through their memory, but they know not that they have

recurred or that they remember. They recognize objects,

both natural and artificial, but they have no idea of them

as being either. A dog may fear another dog which is

stronger and fiercer, but it will have no idea of courage or

fierceness. Even insects will distinguish between differently

coloured objects the white from the blue, the red from the

yellow but no animal knows whiteness or blueness, and still

less has it any notion of " colour." Thus, the so-called " in-

telligence, understanding, and knowledge" of animals are not

really true intelligence, understanding, and knowledge. They

are the sensuous groundwork of such intellectual faculties.

Since, also, they have no abstract ideas, they cannot think

" I." Yet, as we have said, though they have not conscious-

We well recollect having specially questioned Sally's

keeper as to whether she ever pointed to any object or

made use of any gesture with the evident purpose of calling

attention to some fact or passing occurrence.

Although he was well disposed to extol the powers of

his charge so far as truth would permit, he distinctly

aosured us that it did not do so. If anyone came in with

a gun Sally would show extreme terror, but she never

pointed to it, or by gesture called the keeper's attention

to the dreaded object. We were unable to see or hear

anything which rendered it possible to attribute to this

very interesting animal a psychical nature of a higher kind

than that possessed by other beasts. It appeared to us to

have the same kind of powers they possessed, though

possibly somewhat higher in degree. But this, surely, is

just what we might have anticipated.

We may sum up the conclusions at which we have arrived

as follows : The minds of animals are analogous to ours, but

the analogy is expressed, as it were, on a lower plane. They

are astonished, but do not know it ; things recur to them

through their memory, but they know not that they have

recurred or that they remember. They recognize objects,

both natural and artificial, but they have no idea of them

as being either. A dog may fear another dog which is

stronger and fiercer, but it will have no idea of courage or

fierceness. Even insects will distinguish between differently

coloured objects the white from the blue, the red from the

yellow but no animal knows whiteness or blueness, and still

less has it any notion of " colour." Thus, the so-called " in-

telligence, understanding, and knowledge" of animals are not

really true intelligence, understanding, and knowledge. They

are the sensuous groundwork of such intellectual faculties.

Since, also, they have no abstract ideas, they cannot think

" I." Yet, as we have said, though they have not conscious-