I shall now turn to peculiarities of character, highly humanized, which have been attributed to Hans. His "sympathies" and "antipathies", so-called, were nothing but erroneous appellations for the success or failure on the part of the respective individuals to elicit responses. He who could procure answers frequently, apparently stood high in the horse's favor. That Hans shook his head violently when asked by Mr. von Osten: "Do you like Mr. Stumpf?", and answered in the affirmative the further question: "Do you like Mr. Busch?", was nothing but a confession--unwilling, to be sure--on the part of the master himself. In the first case the master thought "no", in the second instance, "yes", and the two thoughts were accompanied by the corresponding head movements, to which Hans responded mechanically. Hans appeared to be well-disposed toward me, but evidently because I always rewarded him liberally when he answered correctly, and I did not scold him when his responses were wrong, as did Mr. von Osten and Mr. Schillings, who instead of seeking the cause within themselves, were always ready to rebuke Hans for his contrariety and fickleness. The horse did not show, in so far as can be judged at all, any real affection for his master. On the other hand it would be unwarranted to say that, in spite of all rewards, he developed a grudge against all those who bothered him with instruction and examination. Shortly after the close of our experimentation it happened that Hans severely injured his groom by a blow in the face. Yet this man had always been very gentle with the horse and had been forbidden by Mr. von Osten to make Hans solve any problems for him. Experts assure me that we have here to deal, not with a case of "moral insanity", but with a very common experience,--although this view will probably be cavilled at by enthusiastic lovers of horses. The work of so excellent an expert as Fillis,[92] for instance, bears us out in this respect.