mastery of every situation. There was a notable absence of
hesitations and mistakes, and of visible direction. The trainer
seemed to do nothing save to assist with the stage properties,
just as an assistant helps any acrobat through the property
business of his act. If any commands or signs were given, the
audience was not aware of it. Later on I learned that sometimes
Peter did not perform with such spirit, and required some urging
to be prompt. The trainer was kept hustling to keep up with his
own duties. The animal seemed to remember, and I believe he did
remember, the sequence of a performance of _fifty-six separate
acts!_

When I witnessed Peter's performance in New York, saw the length
of it and noted the immense amount of nervous energy that each
performance used up, I made the prediction that he could not for
one year endure such a strain. It was reported to me that he died
nine months from that time.

In October, 1909, when Peter went to Philadelphia, he was
frequently and closely studied and observed by Dr. Lightner
Witmer, professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania,
and his mentality was tested at the laboratory of the University.
Dr. Witmer's conclusions, as set forth in a paper in the December
(1909) issue of the _Psychological Clinic,_ are of very great
interest. He approached Peter's first performance in a skeptical
frame of mind. I gladly waive the opportunity to express my own
views regarding Peter in order to put upon the stand a more
competent witness. Hear Dr. Witmer:

"As I entered the theatre," he says, "my feelings were commingled