The Evolution of Equestrianism Spanning 1485-1700

If Richard III had been the only Shakespeare play to mention horses, we might buy that horses can only be valuable when in a dire situation. But because Shakespeare did write another thirty-six plays—at the very least—we find that the playwright thought of horses as more than just beasts of war. Throughout Shakespeare’s canon, it becomes very clear that the playwright understands the intricacies of the horse world during the Renaissance as he alludes to the general well-being of horses, their use in war, preferred breeds during the period, as well as mentions of tack—we see some of this knowledge displayed in plays such as The Taming of the Shrew, Richard III, and Merry Wives of Windsor. Furthermore, he also portrays his understanding of the symbolic resonance horses held during the Renaissance; for example, Shakespeare alludes to the importance of horsemanship in the eyes of the royal court in Henry V, the ways in which we see women likened to horses in Taming of the Shrew, how men find intimate relationships with their horses in Henry IV Part I, as well as the national pride engendered by horses as seen in Henry V.

Outside of Shakespeare, the evolution of horses has been well documented by man since the animal’s domestication circa 3000 B.C.[1] The earliest usage of horses in battle falls around this same time. Additionally, as people began spending more time atop horses, the concept of horsemanship, or the treatment of horseback riding as an art form worthy of respect and study, gained traction. Originally, horsemanship manuals, such as William Cavendish’s A General System of Horsemanship in all it’s Branches or more generalized manuals such as Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie, were utilized to help train young soldiers and establish a baseline level of respect for the horses used in war. However, during the 16th century, as the prominence of gunpowder and guns in early modern warfare increased, English troops slowly transitioned from cavalry to infantry, and horsemanship manuals served a greater purpose amongst the gentry rather than young inexperienced soldiers.[2] As the military usefulness of the horse waned, the overall prevalence of horseback riding simultaneously dwindled. The popularity of horseback riding was in crisis. Yet the gentry still owned horses and the common farmer still used horses as plow animals. The impracticality of eradicating horses from England meant that the horse needed a career change. Thus, in tracking the concurrent evolution of the horse and the horsemanship manuals we see the horse as a whole transform from a tool used in war to one utilized for pleasure.

In mapping the transformation of riding, we noticed that horses in the early modern period have not been discussed at great length in previous scholarship—specifically, the prevalence of horses in leisure activities. Thus, in this essay, we plan to explore the ways in which horses have evolved from a martial creature to one of commonality and recreation. In observing Shakespeare’s references to horses, he either brushes over them in passing, or characterizes the animal. Yet, horses do not appear on stage during any of Shakespeare’s plays. The physical removal of horses from Shakespeare’s plays illustrates that Shakespeare, while offhandedly mentioning the general uses and care for horses, stresses the symbolic importance of the horse. In comparing these two varieties of Shakespeare’s equine allusions, we see that the pastime of horseback riding highlights the two dimensions of the horse—one of utility and one as a symbol—which further parallels the two dimensions of pastimes in general in the early modern period—possessing traits of both the martial and social spheres. Overall, we posit that through the investigation of the modifications in the equipment used to care for, train, and ride horses, the study of classist and gender divides amongst equestrians, and the importance of horses in the evolution of spectator sports, we see that horseback riding links military characteristics to pleasurable activities, comments on usage of pastimes to shape an identity, highlights the similarities between courting and riding, and serves as an activity which marks the importance of the morality of one’s pastimes in the early modern period.

FROM MILITARY TO LEISURE

When analyzing the Shakespeare’s plays we noticed that the king of detail does not fail to remark upon the elegant horses his characters ride. Aside from commenting on the breed of horse, he mentions the strapping nature of the tack that adorns the steed(s). Consider the quote: “Thy horses shall be trapped, / Their harness studded all with gold and pearl” Shakespeare slips into The Taming of the Shrew (IND.2.41-42) which demonstrates the attention that a typical lord would pay attention to the equipment that he decorated his horse with. Simply put, this lord character, who utters the aforementioned lines, would not remark on the quality of the tack itself if its extravagance proved unimportant. Yet, would a traditional early modern lord, outside the confines of Shakespeare care about the quality and design of his tack?

Yes. The evolution in tack from Middle Ages to the Renaissance was a stark one. While the earliest records of people riding on horseback show depictions bareback riding and the occasional use of animal hides in place of what we now term saddle pads, by the early modern period, the popularity of riding bareback had diminished. Saddles became the preferred method in which to perch one’s buttocks on a horse.

Overall, in the early modern period saddles became the focal point of a horse’s armor—often ornate and designed to match the knight’s personal body armor. Some of the more elaborate features of the saddle—such as saddle steels (in reference to “…the set of shaped metal plates covering the pommel and cantle of a saddle…”) also served a defensive purpose as the iron or steel composition of the horse’s armor deflected lances easily. [3] However, riders did not sit in steel saddles for hours. The saddletree would generally be made up of both wooden and iron components with “Its basic structure consist[ing] of a pommel and cantle of shaped wood, each of which is joined to a wooden base in the form of a semicircular arch, the arch being hidden under the saddle cover.”[4] Over the top of the wooden and steel frame, leather and the aforementioned saddle cover were placed, effectively sparing riders from the torture of a steel saddle.[5] The saddle cover would be ornate and generally made from velvet and silk. A basic saddle would generally look like that shown in Figure 1.

Fig. 1. Above we see an illustration of an early modern saddle from around the year 1658 as depicted on page 13 of William Cavendish Newcastle’s A General System of Horsemanship in all it’s Branches: Containing a Faithful Translation Of that most useful and useful work of his grace, William Cavendish, Duke of Newcastle…

Now, those with more money could afford to pay the saddler for a more ornate and comfortable saddle with increased padding in the seat. Members of the gentry could also afford to have their saddle steels embellished with “trophies” or “stylized representations primarily of musical instruments, weapons, armor parts, and shields but also of ribbons, cornucopias, urns, masks, and other objects” onto their steels—an idea western Europeans adopted from classical antiquity.[6] As it turns out, the idea of showing off one’s wealth and prestige through trendy armor is not a new one.

At the pinnacle of fussy saddles, warfare modernized. Mounted cavalry units (which originally gained popularity across Europe during the Middle Ages when armored knights gained social notoriety and innovations in tack—such as the greater degree of mobility of the stirrup—increased the practicality of spending long days in the saddle) decreased in prevalence at the turn of the 16th century due to the increasing predominance of gunpowder.[7] Without emphasis being placed on the cavalry troops, the “…growing importance of artillery—also threatened to undermine the military benefits of riding, the great aristocratic sport.”[8] Thus, gentry had their fancy saddles, well-trained horses, and shelves of cavalry manuals and no militaristic justification to continue spending money and time on improving their horsemanship. Having all the resources to continue riding and training horses, those already priding themselves on their horsemanship skills or their breeding stock continued to push for the establishment of the horse as a creature for recreation. By the 1600s activities on horseback became recreational or utilitarian while still possessing some militaristic characteristics (such as the apparent desire for speed and violence when riding). For example, hunting on horseback—as sport rather than for sustenance—seemed to gain popularity. A trend further reflected through an increased frequency of mentions in texts in the latter half of the early modern period.

Shakespeare’s texts prove no exception. For instance, in Henry VI Part 3 a Post proclaims Edward’s daily exercise to be hunting (4.6.87), Polonius declares that “…this brain of mine / Hunts not the trail of policy so sure / As it hath used to do…” (Hamlet 2.2.49-51), and Shakespeare makes eight references to hunting or hunters in Cymbeline. The above collection of Shakespearean references to hunting illustrates the usage of mounted activities to physically strengthen oneself, the correlation between physical activities and enhanced mental sharpness, and the overall predominance of violent pastimes in early modern society respectively. Thus, given the fact that hunting could take place on horseback, we see that horseback riding, for the nobility, never fully abdicated violence, and in order to properly practice horsemanship one needed an education and certain level of mental sharpness. Instead, during the 1600s, horseback riding transitioned to a leisurely, genteel pastime to a genteel pastime in which the rider could display their prowess and enjoy the speed and violence of war without the stress of preparing for battle.

The warhorse morphed into a symbol of class status as the act of horseback riding was restricted to those who had access to horses bred and trained for riding. And as such, farmers and commoners who needed to use their horse(s) for daily chores did not have the luxury of riding their horses for leisure as the animals needed to utilize their energy for farm work. Peasants in general could not afford more than one horse if any, since horses, even in early modern times, still proved to be expensive to maintain and purchase. Thus, we find further duality in who exactly could own certain horses and the purposes they served because, while horses for commoners became strictly tools, horses for the elite acted as both tools of labor and of leisure. The type of horses lower class people owned usually possessed distinct characteristics that made them suited for more common needs while the elite found that they needed specific horses to suit their high-class qualifications.

HORSES AND IDENTITY

Still, those of lower class status who enlisted in the armed troops in the first half of the early modern period needed to know how to ride. Henry V offers a description of general soldiers when the Grandpré states:

The horsemen sit like fixèd candlesticks

With torch staves in their hand, and their poor jades

Lob down their heads, drooping the hides and hips,

The gum down-roping from their pale dead eyes,

And in their pale dull mouths the gemeled bit

Lies foul with chawed grass, still and motionless.                                  (Henry V 4.2.46-51)

The Grandpré describes the English troops headed into battle, and, by describing the horses, he also seems to portray the condition that the soldiers embody. During the Renaissance, many thought that riders adopted the characteristics of their horses—such as their courage and strength.[9] Thus, if a mounted soldier adopts the character of their steeds, the men as well as the nation adopt those characteristics and the soldiers represent their nation. Through the transitive property, the characteristics a soldier adopts from their horse represents the character of the nation. Because the horses and riders look defeated, tired, and rundown, the stability of the country looks just the same; thus, in Henry V England looks to be an easy target for the French. Similarly, horses affect the identity of the people they associate with, so the breed of horse one owned became very important. No high-class nobleman wanted to have a horse that would make them become weak in the eyes of the court or on the battlefield since riding such a horse could weaken their individual social image and their country’s image. The character of one’s horse affects the rider no matter if they run off into battle or if they participate in leisure activities. The identity of a nation and of an individual in terms of the horse further shows the duality of horseback riding as a pastime and as a martial activity. Both the national and individual identity of a rider stems from his horse and from both the martial and social spheres.

NATIONAL IDENTITY

In exploring the relationship between horses and national pride, we noticed that in the midst of a scheme to trick Falstaff and his accomplices in Henry VI Part I, Hal tells Poins “they will know us by our / horses” (1.2.180). At this time in the play, the line seems harmless and logical: Falstaff probably would know that Hal and Poins tricked them because he would have known what their horses look like. However, if we fast forward to Henry V during the battle between Hal—now King Henry V—and the French, “know us by our horses” becomes prevalent once more, but on a grander scale. At the time, horse breeds were as much of an indicator of nationality as language.[10] The horses bred in each region “was both a product of the environment in which it was created and born particularly to the station in life that is would be expected to fill”: their conformation, their coloring, their temperament, their personality, etc. catered to the region that they lived in, further asserting their position as an indicator of “regional identities.”[11] However, Joanna J. Kucinski argues that horses acted as a symbol of embarrassment for the English because of “the failure of English horse breeding programs.”[12] Therefore, many wealthy horsemen felt the need to import horses from surrounding countries. Eventually, owners bred their imported horses with those in England to slowly work toward altering their bloodlines. After enough generations of tweaking bloodlines, the English horse became a hot commodity and one of the best breeds on the international market.[13]

At the time Shakespeare wrote Henry V, the English horse still did not draw the attention of buyers; however, they still acted as a national symbol for England. Other regions may have looked down on the English for their less-than-stellar horses, but the English still rode their embarrassments into battle in Henry V, and the Constable makes his opinions of their horses. His remark emphasizes France’s inherent distaste for the English and their horses:

Can sodden water,

A drench for sur-reined jades, their barley broth,

Decoct their cold blood to such valiant heat?                                            (3.5.18-20)

This snippet portrays the lack of faith that the French have in the capabilities of the English army and their horses as the Constable clearly states that he does not think their “cold blood” will prevail in such “valiant heat.” Because the horses—and their mounts—derived from England, they would not be used to the French climate, nor would they be used to the general conditions of France. Thus, not only do the French base their judgements on the horses from region of origin, but they also question the vigor of the English troops based on where they come from. This skepticism toward English horses can be read as a jab toward England, and, though the English do not hear this insult, they retaliate, proving the French wrong. By the end of the battle, we hear that England suffered minimal casualties while the French lost nearly their entire army, though outnumbered “five to one” (4.3.4). The defeat seems implausible, but it proves to the French that, although the English and their horses may look easy to defeat, the horsemanship and strength both the steeds and their riders possess cannot be outmatched; thus, English national identity stems from the reliability of both the horses and their soldiers in the toughest of circumstances. Furthermore, this portrayal of national identity stems from the martial sphere, showing that a threat to national identity necessitates war. The martial sphere yet again invades the social because, even in times of peace, the security of a nation’s identity hangs in the balance, so soldiers and their horses must fight to prove their superiority. The intricate relationship between horses, their owners, and national identity opens the door to questions about the connection between horses and the owner’s individual identity.

INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY

Similar to national identity, the mount affects the rider’s perceived individual identity. However, while national identity connected to the horse could be seen during wartime, individual identity became stressed in society as the horse world shifted from the martial sphere to that of the social sphere. Thus, when horseback riding became more of a pastime during times of peace than a necessity in war, the concept of identity shifted from more national and wholistic to individual. We can see this portrayal of individual identity in Henry V when the Dauphin describes his steed:

DAUPHIN Turn the sands into eloquent

tongues, and my horse is argument for them all. ’Tis

a subject for a sovereign to reason on, and for a

sovereign’s sovereign to ride on, and for the world,

familiar to us and unknown, to lay apart their

particular functions and wonder at him. I once writ

a sonnet in his praise and began thus: “Wonder of

nature—”

ORLÉANS I have heard a sonnet begin so to one’s

mistress.

DAUPHIN Then did they imitate that which I composed

to my courser, for my horse is my mistress.                                           (Henry V 3.7.37-46.)

As the Dauphin of France brags about the sheer majesty of his horse, his comrade acknowledges that his relationship with his horse seems to be as strong as one a man has with his wife. Not only does the Dauphin’s interaction with Orleans show how strong the bonds between horse and rider can be, but the conversation enlightens readers to the standard a man like the Dauphin expects his horse to be for him to hold the animal in such a high regard. If the horse were not immaculate, in both conformation and in behavior, the beast would not be worthy of belonging to the Dauphin since he would adopt his horse’s characteristics. Thus, when the Dauphin previously described the horse as being “pure air and fire, and the dull/ elements of earth and water never appear in him,” (3.7.21-22) these characteristics become those of the rider when he mounts his steed. Therefore, because the horse proves to be ready to succeed in battle, so will the Dauphin. Not only does the Dauphin’s horse have to meet high expectations to ensure that the rider would adopt beneficial traits from the beast, but also because horse practices differed between the classes and between places.[14]

In today’s society, we commonly assume that those who own horses have to be wealthy, but early modern Englishmen did not completely agree. The perception of the of excess wealth needed to own horses may be more common today, but early modern Englishmen understood that owning horses themselves did not determine wealth as both noblemen and common folk owned horses; however, the number of horses one owned, the breed of horse, the usage of the animal, and the level of training made all the difference. Horses acted as a great signifier of a person’s status and different breeds had different jobs at the time. While common folk owned more mundane horses used for farm work and transportation, noblemen owned expensive imports—they often owned multiple mounts, each with a specific use. Common folk owned work horses to be used as tools while noblemen owned extravagant horses to be used as status symbols. For example, drafts pulled plows, machines, coaches, wagons, and transported goods; saddle-broke horses helped their riders with functional tasks as well as leisure activities.[15] Coloring also played a part in the selection of a horse: bright sorrells’ personalities could be hot, fiery, and had little strength, making them unsuitable for labor but just right for war; whereas milky white or very white horses tended to be slow, dull, and heavy, making them good for pulling carts, plows, and labor in mills.[16] As previously mentioned, English breeding programs did not have a high success rate, and the quality of English horses lacked in comparison to those of neighboring countries; foreign horses had to be imported for those who wished to select a horse from a different genepool. Thus, it makes sense that only the elite could afford the steep prices of imported stock. As a result of the distinct economic divide in the quality of horses one could afford, common folk could not own more expensive breeds as it could be perceived by society as financial corruption—either they lied about the amount of money they had, or they stole the horse they had.[17]

During the early modern period, common folk depended on horses to complete tasks that proved too cumbersome for humans alone. For example, owners commonly used their horses “for farm work” and travelled “on horseback or on foot.”[18] In The Every-Day Book, we find a report of a “broken-down horse” who had thrice made the same long journey to and from town to the fair “with a full load back” and could not make the fourth trip.[19] The entry does not say what happened to the horse, but we can assume that they quickly replaced the animal and left the exhausted creature behind. The elite found that horses—especially those that completed tasks such as pulling carts and wagons—could be easily replaced. The elite could afford to run through as many horses as they pleased, but common folk could not. Most often, common folk saved up to buy a single horse to help them complete more arduous tasks; they used the horse for as long as possible and attempted to keep them alive and healthy. While the lower class chose function over beauty, the upper class chose beauty over function.[20]

Noblemen used their stellar horses to display their superior status and to flaunt their riding abilities. Elites made sure they had high profile horses so they would look good, but even more important than the look of the horses proved to be the owner’s ability to ride their mount. During the Renaissance, England did not have the best reputation when it came to horsemanship, so many noblemen travelled to other countries such as Italy or France to complete their gentlemanly training and learn the art of manège.[21] To clarify, the OED defines manège as “the movements in which a horse is trained in a riding school; the art or practice of training and managing horses; horsemanship,” and this definition closely mirrors a secondary definition of the modern word manage.[22] Manège during the Renaissance could be very similarly defined as the “refinement and an aestheticization of traditional cavalry techniques” or, in other words, translating the movements needed for battle—such as “their need to turn and swerve, to halt and to charge”—into the intricate and more abstract movements of jousting and tournaments, later developing into circus riding and trick riding.[23] This art of the manège became extremely important to nobles in court as the practice proved very difficult and one had to have “theoretical knowledge, physical skill…, emotional equilibrium, and…rectitude” in order to successfully master the art.[24]

By riding a horse well, a nobleman proved his worthiness to be in the royal court; if a man fell off his mount, he lost face and the favor of his peers.[25] We see this in The Two Noble Kinsmen when Arcite fell off of his “black” (5.4.65) steed that “Emily did first bestow on him” (5.4.64-65). Just after Arcite won a fight against his cousin, Palamon, to determine who would win Emily and take her hand in marriage, the warrior falls off his steed and dies. In choosing to have Arcite fall off his horse, Shakespeare tells his readers that, even though Arcite won the battle against his cousin and acquired Emilia, he did not truly deserve to win. Earlier in the scene, the crown chants Palamon’s name and they are sure that this cousin will prevail over the other, but Arcite swoops in at the last second and bests his kinsman. Shakespeare alerts his audience to the inadequacies that Arcite possesses as he forgets how to control his horse even though he had been “trained [in the art of] kind manage” (5.4.83-84). Though Arcite rode his new steed in a leisurely victory-lap, the implications of his deadly fall remain very clear: Arcite could not truly be superior in the martial sphere if he could not control a horse in the social sphere; thus, the victor falls and dies after his horse falls on top of him. Palamon found himself bested by Arcite, but Arcite found himself bested by a hot horse he should have been able to control both in leisure and in war.

HORSES, SEX, AND GENDER

As we see with Shakespeare’s expression of his disdain for those with poor horsemanship skills, Shakespeare repeatedly offers his opinions through his character’s dialogue. Therefore, given Shakespeare’s references to women as horses, breeding stock, and men’s to dominate, it seems logical that not much information can be found about women recreating horses in early modern England. Often, instead of being described mounted atop horses, women often found themselves being compared to their equine counterparts. Shakespeare demonstrates prowess in comparing women to man’s chattel, and in doing so he comments upon men’s desired control over women in both the pastimes of courting and horseback riding.  Consider the manner in which Shakespeare makes Katherina in The Taming of the Shrew out to be an animal—through references to being a devil, wild cat, and hawk (just to list a few). In fact, as Roberts articulates, shrewish Katherina finds herself associated with more animalistic traits than any other female character in Shakespeare’s plays (a potential byproduct of Katherina’s and Petruchio’s first encounter, wherein both attempt to outdo the other with bestial insults).[26] This motif of domination continues throughout the entirety of the play and resolves itself with Katherina’s submission as she states: “And be it moon, or sun, or what you please. / And if you please to call it a rush candle, / Henceforth I vow it shall be so for me” (Taming 4.5.15-17).

Now if we accept Roberts’ statement that “There can be no doubt that the equation of women with horses was operative in Elizabethan culture” we see that the domination of women is directly correlated with the domination of horses in the early modern period—with eventual submission as the goal in both cases.[27] Moreover, “it is a Renaissance commonplace that horses represent the passions, which must be reined in by the rational rider for a harmonious and moderate life.”[28] Thus, two partners, such as Petruchio and Kate must control their passions. And Kate—following the misogynistic tendencies of the early modern period—must be the one to eventually allow herself to be reined in by Petruchio if she desires a “harmonious” marriage.  Armed with this example of Kate and Petruchio, we see that romance and the pastime of courting parallels horseback riding—both as games of domination.

This association between courting and power finds itself further articulated in King Henry’s courting of Katherine in Henry V. Henry has just defeated the French troops at the Battle of Agincourt and wishes to woo the fair Kate. Having just proved his military superiority, Henry has the ability to lord over her and her father. Manipulating his power, he requests a private conference with Kate—forcing her father and mother, as well as other French lords, to exit. As Gervase Markham articulates in Markham’s Maister-Peece the movement of a beast’s feet represents the triumph of a man over an animal.[29] Thus, physical movement of Henry conducting the King and Queen of France, as well as an assortment of French lords, out of the room suggests that the nobility of France have become his livestock and he, the shepherd.

With regards to Katherine, he attempts to win her by comparing gaining her trust to successfully mounting a horse:

If I could win a

lady at leapfrog or by vaulting into my saddle with

my armor on my back, under the correction of

bragging be it spoken, I should quickly leap into a

wife.                                                                                                    (Henry V 5.2.142-146)

Henry slyly incorporates the element of physical domination into his declaration of love. Having removed all of Kate’s allies, with the exception of her translator, Alice, he has weakened her agency because the princess of France cannot offend Henry—he has defeated her country and her father, leaving her without protection or power. Kate seems uncomfortable with Henry’s projection of love and earnestness as portrayed by Henry’s reflection that “…when I come to woo ladies [Katherine], I fright them” (Henry V 5.2.237). At this point in the play, Henry has commanded Kate to be his wife, she has acquiesced, and yet another early modern courtship mimics the typical Renaissance dynamic of dominance between a rider and his horse.

Additionally, King Henry’s usage of the phrase of “quickly leap into a wife” (Henry V 5.2.145-146) also possesses a sexual detonation—one of penetration. Although the King of England draws a loose connection between horses and the sexual penetration of his potential wife, Shakespeare’s Venus and Adonis provides a stronger example of how Shakespeare sexualizes horses—and, therefore, sexualizes the pastime of horseback riding.

The episode which transpires between the Courser and the Jennet in lines 259-324 of Venus and Adonis highlights the Courser’s impulsive lust for the mare with: “His eye, which scornfully glisters like fire, / Shows his hot courage and his high desire” (Venus 275-276), and accentuates the rebellious nature of the stud by stating: “The iron bit he crusheth ’tween his teeth, / Controlling what he was controllèd with” (Venus 269-270). The horse’s discardment of his tack illustrates the creature’s abdication of reason since the rider provided his mount with reason through his spur, seat, and rein movements.[30] Similarly, Venus wishes Adonis would abandon his reason, follow his bestial nature, and sleep with her.

Early modern readers, aware of the parallel relationships of the Courser and the Jennet and Venus and Adonis, realized the sexual connotations of the equine parody.[31] Therefore, readers would have been aware that had Adonis acted as a hot-blooded horse and abandoned his morals (as the Courser abandoned his bridle and rider) he would have been seen as succumbing to man’s natural bestial side. Given the fact that the two horses are merely animals, their motivations cannot be questioned since many assume sex, but not procreation, acts as the driving force for stud-mare interactions.[32] However, in comparing a man to a lusting stallion, Shakespeare calls out the pretense of politeness and innocence often displayed by all classes of men, from King Henry V to Petruchio, when they attempt to seduce a woman. Shakespeare uses the image of the horse in the aforementioned instances to illuminate the sexuality of man and how violence and sex can easily become motivating factors when men partake in pastimes—for example, courting. Thus, horseback riding becomes a symbol for man’s desire for power and domination. Sex and the condemnation of women in Shakespeare proves to be a symbolic game wherein Shakespeare illustrates man’s impropriety.

CARE FOR HORSES

Similar to both Venus and Adonis as well as Henry V in their treatment of women as horses, Petruchio in Taming of the Shrew projects his need to be superior through his treatment of his own horse as described on his wedding day:

Why, Petruchio is coming in a new hat and

an old jerkin, a pair of old breeches thrice turned,

a pair of boots that have been candle-cases, one

buckled, another laced; an old rusty sword ta’en

out of the town armory, with a broken hilt, and

chapeless; with two broken points; his horse

hipped, with an old mothy saddle and stirrups of no

kindred, besides possessed with the glanders and

like to mose in the chine, troubled with the lampass,

infected with the fashions, full of windgalls,

sped with spavins, rayed with the yellows, past cure

of the fives, stark spoiled with the staggers, begnawn

with the bots, swayed in the back and shoulder-shotten,

near-legged before, and with a half-checked

bit and a headstall of sheep’s leather,

which, being restrained to keep him from stumbling,

hath been often burst, and now repaired with

knots; one girth six times pieced, and a woman’s

crupper of velour, which hath two letters for her

name fairly set down in studs, and here and there

pieced with packthread.                                                                                        (3.2.42-62)

The state of Petruchio’s horse shows that the mistreatment of horses did not go unnoticed at the time. In fact, many believed that mistreating horses showed that the owner did not have a religious nature because “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast.”[33] In ensuring that their horses had the best care their owners could provide, a few questions emerge: How did owners take care of their horses? What did they do to provide for them? How many diseases did they know to treat? Who treated those diseases? What did they do with horses when they became too old to work? Petruchio’s horse proves to be a prime example of common diseases at the time as well as the effects of neglect on the animal as “[t]his is not just a sick horse; this horse is diseased on an epic scale.”[34] Peter F. Heaney claims that Petruchio’s ego inhibits his ability to fully care about the horse’s wellbeing, let alone truly care for the animal’s needs. Petruchio clearly does not show compassion for the state of his horse, and he would not have been respected by many people at the time because of his neglect. However, a proper horse owner would have gained the respect of his peers as they would have taken care of one of God’s creatures.[35]

A proper horse owner—depending on their class status—ensured that they took care of their horses but for different reasons. For example, people of the lower classes had more economic interest in the condition of their horses because they did not have the funds to replace the expensive animal.[36] Common folk also relied more on their own knowledge of horse diseases to cure them as they did not have the funds to hire a professional farrier—similar to what we know to be a veterinarian today—to take care of their horses, and much of what they knew about treating diseases came from almanacs.[37] Thus, we can assume that Petruchio did not have the proper knowledge or funds (or the general compassion) to ensure that his horse would remain healthy. If Petruchio had more money, he would have been able to care for his horse better because he would have either been able to afford a farrier; he also would have had more knowledge from horsemanship books that primarily elites could afford.

While owners gave their horses as much care as they could afford, they also had their superstitions about what horses could be susceptible to which diseases and why. Much like the human concept of the four humors, many believed that horses reacted to this phenomenon as well. The veterinary science behind horse diseases stood that the color of a horse’s coat could indicate the excess of one of the humors over the others as well as what tasks the horse would be useful for. For example, black horses often had excess choler, making them more susceptible to fevers, inflammation, and other hot diseases while white horses showed more susceptible to cold or wet diseases. However, no matter the coloring or the breed, horses fell ill and needed medical attention given by either farriers or blacksmiths. During the Renaissance, horse owners viewed farriers as the highest level of help one could obtain for their horses, but blacksmiths also crossed the line into veterinary care—even though their primary job consisted of caring for horse’s feet. We even see Shakespeare mention the occupation of a blacksmith in King John when he writes “I saw a smith stand with his hammer, thus, / The whilst his iron did on the anvil cool” (4.2.204-205) and such a depiction of a blacksmith wielding his hammer can be found in Figure 2 below.

Fig. 2. An image of a blacksmith taken from page 104 of Joh. Amos Comenius’s Visible World: or A Nomenclature,           and Pictures of all the Chief Things that are in the World, and of Men’s Employments Therein.

The mending and molding of hot iron to horses’ feet seems to be quite the art form as ill-fitted shoes comprise(d) the soundness of the horse. In lines 204-221 of this same scene from King John Shakespeare stresses how a blacksmith likely prioritized the provision of his services to the military’s horses. Overall, we see that horses used for military purposes often found their foot care more often outsourced to blacksmiths.

Now, how does the issue of horse care relate to the pastime of horseback riding? Naturally, a horse’s soundness and overall health impacts their performance abilities—both in battle and in recreation. Therefore, a lame or unhealthy horse inhibits the equestrian’s pleasure and safety in riding. Since men generally took pride in their horses, they wanted to sit atop a strong and swift horse to help publicize their own strength and agility in war and in the streets. Thus, people who saw a man like riding a run-down horse, they would be shunned. Moreover, if one took pleasure from riding such a battered creature as Petruchio’s horse, your early modern peers would have assumed that you lacked morality. Hence, taking care of one’s horse allowed for the horse to be used for recreation longer while still maintaining one’s social perception. And this necessity for the good health of one’s horse again blurs the lines between the martial and social spheres. Not only does one’s horse need to be in great health in order to prove themselves to others socially as well as martially, while stressing the economic profitability of pastimes—such as horseback riding—in the early modern period as riding for both war and play created financial security for both farriers and blacksmiths alike.

HORSES AS PUBLIC SPECTACLES

Horses that existed in the public sphere experienced a wide range of treatments and uses—both positive and negative. A few activities horses participated in during the Renaissance include fairs, jousting, fights, and racing. Some of these activities proved to be leisurely for both the participants as well as the spectators, but more commonly, spectators proved the true beneficiaries—definitely not the horses.

Horse fighting may not be the first activity to come to mind when we think about early modern interactions with horses, but the practice proved prevalent. Watching horses fight proved to be a spectator sport as people watched different animals fight rather than people fighting on horseback. We found an account of a horse fight in the Every-Day Book that describes a horse being put into an arena with a lion and a bear in the hope they would fight because the bear and lion did not fight.[38] However, they soon discovered that the “high-spirited horse” did not interact with either the bear nor the lion.[39] They then sent “six mastiffs” who then attacked only the horse until the bear interfered, drawing the dogs’ attention away.[40] Those who watched the fight spent their leisure time watching animals fight one another. This instance of leisure and horses proves to be one in which horses become simply a livestock animal and takes away the symbolic significance it held as a parallel to women, a symbol of bestial desire, a determining factor of one’s identity, and so on. The elites presumably did not throw their expensive imported horses into the arena, and by stripping the horse of its status as a symbol in society, spectators could fully enjoy the scene in front of them.

As animal fights maintained their popularity, the singularity of Shakespeare’s reference to jousting (in Pericles: “…there are princes and knights / come from all parts of the world to joust and tourney / for her love” (2.1.113-115)) illustrates the waning popularity of the sport throughout the duration of the early modern period. Jousting, or the action of attempting to strike or unseat one’s opponent while riding as fast as possible at one another on different sides of a wooden barrier, began as a game used for martial training—designed to teach those in the cavalry how to properly wield a lance and we see such an attempt to instruct young cavalry members in Figure 3 below.[41] Jousting, although designed to prepare mounted soldiers for warfare, also found its use in the courts. When jousting made the transition into being a specialized sport and less of a training tool in the late middle ages, jousting evolved into a spectator sport for the nobility.[42] King Charles I even incorporated the sport into his marriage festivities—allowing wedding guests to partake in viewing the spectacle. However, during the 17th century, jousting found itself abandoned by both the military and the English nobility. Instead, more nonviolent equestrian sports, such as horse racing, prevailed—illustrating that the decreasing popularity of violent equine spectacles parallels the decreasing popularity in violent pastimes.

Fig. 3. An instructional page depicting how to properly wield a lance and hit a target taken from Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie: or Rules and Directions for the Service of Horse, Collected out of Divers Forrain Authors Ancient and Modern, and Rectified and Supplied, According to the Present Practise of the Low-Countrey Warres by John Curso page 37.

Horse racing proves to be a very interesting sport in terms of leisure and the role horses had. For example, horse racing shifted from being “the sport of the participator more than of the spectator” to become one “of ‘spectating rather than of participating” because those who trained the horses and rode in the races proved to be “day-to-day work of those doing nothing else.”[43] The shift came about primarily due to the growing participation in betting during the Renaissance. Without the interest of betting, the idea of the spectator becomes unnecessary—which explains why horse racing originated as a participant sport that praised the jockeys over their horses if they won the race and did not involve betting quite yet.[44] Because those who train and ride the horses do so in their free time, their efforts can be classified as leisurely, and those who watch the races participate in leisure because they bet on horses and spectate the events. Horse racing proved to be problematic in the political sphere as well because, until Charles II became enamored with the sport and changed laws surrounding it, racing went through stages where the general public accepted the practice of participating and spectating as well as times where the majority of the populous rejected it.[45] However, in his literature, Shakespeare does not take sides in the debate over the ethics of horse racing, he often comments on the speed of the horses he mentions. For example, Macbeth says “I wish your horses swift and sure of foot, / And so I do commend you to their backs” (3.1.41-42) which shows that the speed of horses remained prevalent in both work and in play, further blurring the line between the two.

In addition to horse spectacles occurring at the race track, some equine related events took place at fairs. In early modern England we see a conflation between markets and fairs.[46] Vendors present at the fair sold items and livestock at competitive prices and often those of lower class status would frequent fairs provided they could find transportation to them.[47] Since transportation to fairs needed to be arranged, published guides were available—which included a fair’s location, date, and what goods would be for sale.[48] While fairs included this market element, they were also designed to make a profit by drawing in all people who could pay the entry toll.[49] And, seeing as not everyone came to the fair to purchase a new cow, attractions like horse and animal fights found themselves incorporated into the fair—pleasing fair attendants seeking to fulfill a business venture or find a purely pleasurable experience. Thus, fairs in the early modern period existed on the border between business and play.

Overall, we observe that equine spectacles blurred the lines between work and play. Spectating in general exists on the line between leisure and occupation, as participants in horse races or vendors at fairs financially profited from the events. Whereas, those witnessing animal fights or jousts took pleasure from the events and the participants themselves cannot be described as enjoying the activity. Though the horses may be used for the purpose of others’ pleasure, their participation still illustrates a transition from war to peacetime. The swiftness that Shakespeare describes his characters’ horses having transfers to the races. The self-preservation skills horses needed to have on a battlefield transfers to horse fights. The courage and stamina horses needed during battle transfers to that of jousting. Lastly, the economic investment of a horse applies to any steed—either in war or for sale at the fair. Thus, the horse use a as spectacle relates closely to the utilitarian warhorse, further emphasizing the intermediary nature of horseback riding during the Renaissance. Since horseback riding possesses this intermediary nature, it suggests that all pastimes existed on the border between war and leisure—incorporating elements of their martial utility into a social spectacle.

CONCLUSION

Although people wished to keep their horses in good health so that they would be able to ride them through town, on a hunt, or into battle, horses were not just a method of transportation to all. Consider Hotspur’s particular relationship with his horse in Henry IV Part 1, where, in response to his wife’s question “What is it carries you away?” (2.3.80), Hotspur replies “Why, my horse, my love, my horse” (2.3.81). Now one could read “my love” as an appositive in reference to Kate. However, Hotspur later says to his wife: “Come, wilt thou see me ride? / And when I am a-horseback I will swear / I love thee infinitely” (Henry IV Part 1 2.3.106-108) implying that he only truly feels love when riding or talking about his horse.  Now, we, as readers of early modern texts, cannot assume that every horseman loved his horse as much as Hotspur cared for his (especially considering the treatment Petruchio bestows upon his mount). Yet, the love and devotion that most early modern equestrians—such as William Cavendish—whose wife described him as being “attached to [his horses] as individuals”—showed their horses illustrates the overall importance of the pastime of riding and the symbolic nature of the horse.[50] Even though this importance might have stemmed from the practicality of using horses in war, since the 1600s, horses have mainly been used for pleasure riding.

As well as the evolution of the horse from the military to social sphere, we have observed a transformation in the tack and equipment used, marked how the practice of horsemanship highlights the importance of national and individual identity, noticed the role of domination in courting and riding, realized the extent to which early modern horsemen cared for their horses, and noted the prevalence of equine spectacles.

As these transformations occurred throughout the early modern period, we observe the horse transition from an object of utility and war to an emblem of personal pride. During the years 1485-1700, we see the art of horseback riding migrate from the military to ludic sphere, shape the concept of identity, interrelate sex, dominance, and power, illustrate the ties between work and the preservation of leisure, and highlight the importance of spectacles in the early modern period. Overall, we witness horseback riding become a quintessential pastime for the nobility. Additionally, we observe that horseback riding illuminates various trends of pastimes as a whole during the Renaissance. Each of the transitions—such as the shift from martial to social prevalence—that horseback riding underwent, we see mirrored in a variety of pastimes like wrestling and archery.[51] Therefore, we conclude that horseback riding serves as a benchmark pastime in early modern England—one that accurately captures the transitional time of the Renaissance—a time where mentions of pastimes in Shakespeare’s works emphasized the practicality of leisure and the symbolic resonance recreational activities would hold throughout early modern England.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] “Domestication History of Horses,” Equine World UK, August 2, 2018. http://www.equineworld.co.uk/about-horses/domestication-history-of-horses.

[2] Gregory M. Colón Semenza, “Sport, War, and Contest in Shakespeare’s Henry VI,” Renaissance Quarterly, no. 54 (2001): 1251-1272.

[3] Stuart W. Phyrr, Donald J. LaRocca, and Dirk H. Brieding, The Armored Horse in Europe 1480-1620 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2005), 19.

[4] Pyhrr, LaRocca, and Breiding, 60.

[5] Pyhrr, LaRocca, and Breiding, 61.

[6] Pyhrr, LaRocca, and Breiding, 62.

[7] Semenza, “Sport, War, and Contest in Shakespeare’s Henry VI.”

[8] Semenza, 1260.

[9] Peter Edwards and Elspeth Graham., introduction to The Horse as Cultural Icon: The Real and the Symbolic Horse in the Early Modern World, ed. Peter Edwards, Karl A.E. Enenkel, and Elspeth Graham (Netherlands: Brill Publishing, 2012).

[10] Kucinski, Joanna J. “English Dogs and Barbary Horses: Horses, Dogs, and Identity in the Renaissance.” Renaissance Papers (2014): 123-135.

[11] Ian F. MacInnes, “Altering a Race of Jades: Horse Breeding and Geohumoralism in Shakespeare,” in The Horse as Cultural Icon: The Real and the Symbolic Horse in the Early Modern World, ed. Peter Edwards, Karl A.E. Enenkel, and Elspeth Graham (Netherlands: Brill Publishing, 2012) 180.

[12] Kucinski, 126.

[13] MacInnes, “Altering a Race of Jades: Horse Breeding and Geohumoralism in Shakespeare.”

[14] Edwards and Graham, introduction to The Horse as Cultural Icon: The Real and the Symbolic Horse in the Early Modern World.

[15] Edwards and Graham, introduction to The Horse as Cultural Icon: The Real and the Symbolic Horse in the Early Modern World.

[16] Louise Hill Curth, “’The most excellent of animal creatures’”: Health Care for Horses in Early Modern England,” in The Horse as Cultural Icon: The Real and the Symbolic Horse in the Early Modern World, ed. Peter Edwards, Karl A.E. Enenkel, and Elspeth Graham (Netherlands: Brill Publishing, 2012), 217-240.

[17] Curth.

[18] Dorothy Hartley and Margaret Elliot, Life and Work of the People of England (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1926) 62 and 75.

[19] William Hone. Every-Day Book (London: 1827), 437-438.

[20] Peter Edwards, “Image and Reality: Upper Class Perceptions of the Horse in Early Modern England,” in The Horse as Cultural Icon: The Real and the Symbolic Horse in the Early Modern World, ed. Peter Edwards, Karl A.E. Enenkel, and Elspeth Graham (Netherlands: Brill Publishing, 2012), 281-306.

[21] Elspeth Graham, “The Duke of Newcastle’s ‘love […] for good horses’: An Exploration of Meanings,” in The Horse as Cultural Icon: The Real and the Symbolic Horse in the Early Modern World, ed. Peter Edwards, Karl A.E. Enenkel, and Elspeth Graham (Netherlands: Brill Publishing, 2012), 37-69. as well as William Cavendish Duke of Newcastle, A General System of Horsemanship in all it’s Branches. (NewBond-Street, 1658).

[22] Oxford English Dictionary (www.oed.com, 2018).

[23] Graham, 47 and 50.

[24] Pia F. Cuneo, “Visual Aids: Equestrian Iconography and the Training of Horse, Rider, and Reader,” in The Horse as Cultural Icon: The Real and the Symbolic Horse in the Early Modern World, ed. Peter Edwards, Karl A.E. Enenkel, and Elspeth Graham (Netherlands: Brill Publishing, 2012), 78.

[25] Cuneo.

[26] Jeanne Addison Roberts, “Horses and Hermaphrodites: Metamorphoses in the Taming of the Shrew.” Shakespeare Quarterly, no. 34 (1983): 163.

[27] Roberts, 164.

[28] Roberts, “Horses and Hermaphrodites: Metamorphoses in the Taming of the Shrew.” 166.

[29] Gervase Markham, Markhams Maister-Peece.( London: Nicholar Okes, 1615).

[30] Markham, “Markham’s Maister-Peece.”

[31] Robert P. Miller, “Venus, Adonis, and the Horses,” ELH, no. 4 (1952): 249-264.

[32] Miller, 254.

[33] Curth, “’The most excellent of animal creatures’”: Heath Care for Horses in Early Modern England.”

[34] Peter F. Heaney “Petruchio’s Horse: Equine and Household Mismanagement in The Taming of the Shrew,”Early Modern Literary Studies 4.1 (1998).

[35] Curth, “’The most excellent of animal creatures’”: Heath Care for Horses in Early Modern England.”

[36] Curth.

[37] Curth, “’The most excellent of animal creatures’”: Heath Care for Horses in Early Modern England.”

[38] Hone, Every-Day Book, 1000.

[39] Hone, Every-Day Book, 1000.

[40] Hone, 1000.

[41] John Curso, Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie. (Cambridge: Universitie of Cambridge).

[42] Andrea Hopkins, Tournaments and Jousts: Training for War in Medieval Times, (New York: Rosen Publishing Group, 2004).

[43] Ernest Barker, The Character of England, (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1947) 450 and 451.

[44] Hamish Park, “Passion, Remembrance, and Identity: The Palio of Siena,” Journal of Mediterranean Studies, no. 2 (1992): 80-97.

[45] Huggins, Mike. “Early Modern Sport,” in The Oxford Handbook of Sports History, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 113-130.

[46] Tom Harris, Popular Culture in England, c. 1500-1850, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995.

[47] Harris, Popular Culture in England, c. 1500-1850.

[48] Harris.

[49] Harris.

[50] Graham, “The Duke of Newcastle’s ‘love […] for good horses’: An Exploration of Meanings,” 40.

[51] Semenza, “Sport, War, and Contest in Shakespeare’s Henry VI,” 1260-1261.