ose who were accustomed to working with him, did not have him
completely in hand. (They simply did not understand how to obtain
correct responses from the horse.) It often happened that in the
evening, when it had become so dark that the movements of Mr. von Osten
could no longer be seen, Hans had to suffer bitter reproaches because he
made so many errors. That, in truth, he never was stubborn and that the
cause of failure really lay in the questioner, is shown by the fact that
the mood, for which he was reproved, would disappear the moment the
questioner voluntarily controlled the signals. We may add that there was
no basis for the assumption that "he had an uncommon, finely constituted
nervous system" or was possessed of a "high degree of nervousness". Both
these phrases were often mentioned by way of explanation. Hans was
restive, as horses usually are. And besides, he lived a life so secluded
(he was never allowed to leave the courtyard) that as a result he was
easily disturbed by strange sights and sounds. There was not the
slightest trace of the clinical symptoms of neurasthenia--on the
contrary he gave the impression of perfect health,--which was curious
enough when we remember his rather unnatural mode of life.

Hans's stubbornness was a myth. He was suspected of it whenever the same
error occurred a number of times in succession, i. e., when the
questioner did not properly regulate his attention (page 146) or when he
was being controlled by "perseverative tendency", mentioned on page 149.
Mr. Schillings, who has provided me with material here as elsewhere,
relates the following episode which occurred on one such occasion. To
one and the same question put alternately by Mr. von Osten and Mr.
Schillings, Hans responded correctly, with two taps, to the former, and
just as persistently incorrectly, with three taps, to the latter. After
Mr. Schillings had suffered this to occur three times he accosted the
horse peremptorily: "And now are you going to answer correctly?".
Hereupon Hans promptly shook his head, to the great merriment of all
those present. (Mr. Schillings had, with no accounted reason, expected a
"no".) Hans was called willful whenever the same question was
successively answered by different responses, as frequently happened
with the increasing tension that characterized the high numbers (page
145). He was also regarded as stubborn when no reply at all was
forthcoming, as in the tests with the blinders.