off the feet of all he caught, keeping them prisoners and eating them
one to-day and one to-morrow. To eat them all at once would have been
impossible. He had his health to think of. His forethought, which went
quite as far as ours, extended to bringing them grain for their
subsistence.

* * * * *

If this is not reasoning, then I do not understand what reasoning is.
See what arguments he used:--

"When these mice are caught they run away, therefore I must eat them as
I catch them. What all? Impossible! But would it not be well to keep
some for a needy future? If so, I must keep them and feed them too,
without their escaping. But how's that to be done? Happy thought! Nip
off their feet!"

Now find me among human beings anything better carried out. Did
Aristotle and his followers do any better thinking, by my faith?


NOTE.--This is not a fable. The thing actually occurred, although
marvellous enough and almost incredible. I have perhaps carried the
forethought of this owl too far, for I do not pretend to establish in
animals a line of reasoning; but in this style of literature a little
exaggeration is pardonable.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 18: One of the three Fates, the first and second being Clotho