Controversy: Riding Magazine and equestrian controversy in the 1940s
On my Facebook page a few weeks back, I posted a cover of Riding Magazine from 1941,
really because it was the Pullein-Thompsons’ first appearance in print
(Cocktail Capitulates – a piece written by all three on the schooling of a
difficult pony). The whole point of a front cover is to encourage people to
dive into the delights contained within, and as the magical pull of this
edition had not faded over the 70 plus years since it was published, people
wanted to know what was the controversy mentioned on the front cover?
 |
| Riding, January 1941 |
The controversial horse was a series of articles appearing
each month on a topical controversy. I’ve found three so far, and when I’ve
found the rest of my 1941 copies, I shall be able to tell you if they continued
beyond that. The series kicked off a couple of months before the issue above, with an article on how best to control the horse.
If you fought off the temptation to go straight to the article
in November 1940’s issue, The Mental
Aspect of Control – Ascendancy of the Human Mind by Rufus, but read the
editor’s Notes of the Month, you would have been left in no doubt about the
editor’s opinion on controversy number one. ‘The author, it would seem,’ wrote
RS Summerhays, somewhat disingenuously as presumably he had had at least
something to do with the commissioning of the article, ‘is against physical
correction and would rely entirely upon mental control … he looks upon the
association between man and horse as a battle of brains devoid of the element
of physical contest, adding, in effect, that if it comes to the latter, it is a
case of pitting strength against strength to the rider’s disadvantage. We think, however, that is where the argument lies. Does the
rider, in fact, come off worse?’
The editor then makes a comparison that I’m not entirely
sure stands up to rigorous examination, when he draws a parallel between the
author’s rejection of reprisals to the country’s current fight against the
Nazis:
The author is against reprisals
of any sort, a matter of great concern to us just now in more important matters
than the relationship existing between horse and man. We doubt the
effectiveness of mental persuasion on the Nazis.
Just because something’s true in one set of circumstances,
it does not mean that it is in another. But the editor left this fairly
colossal sideswipe as his last, and one would presume he thought, unanswerable,
word on the subject.
Rufus takes what is still a thoroughly topical debate – think
of the controversy about the use of the whip in racing, or the tremendous huhaOliver Townend found himself in when having over-used the whip on both his
Badminton horses – and questions how far one should go when using physical
methods to control the horse.
 |
| Moyra Charlton – Three White Stockings |
Rufus, I strongly suspect, would not have approved at all of
Mr Townend, or the many examples you can see every day of riders using the
latest fashionable bit of equipment as the answer to all problems of equine
disobedience.
… invariably,’ he says, ‘we find
that far too much stress is laid on the practical side of the question, on this
or that bridle, on this or that method of holding the reins, and not nearly
enough attention is paid to what might be termed the mental aspect of control.
Using force against a horse which
disobeys is equivalent to kicking the electric light switch when the lights
have fused: it only makes matters worse.
Rather, says Rufus, you must use your brain when trying to
persuade your horse to do what you want: because in a straight trial of
strength, a human being will never win. He believes that ‘the horse never disobeys
out of “sheer spite” but over-freshness, bad riding or bad training.’ Rather
than spite, perhaps, I would allow some ponies I've met sheer bloody mindedness.
But for whatever reason your equine misbehaves, to overcome behaviour you do not want, you must play a sort
of game in which ‘we must know how to lose should the horse momentarily get the
better of us.’ Wise words.
Rufus believes that it is impossible to transform a horse
into a mere robot – the ‘rigid German school of horsemanship’ being the nearest
example he can think of, which he compares to the Italian school at the other
end of the spectrum, which aims to give ‘the maximum possible scope to the
horse’s individuality compatible with control.' I wonder what Rufus would make of equestrianism now, when the pendulum does seem, in some quarters at least, to have swung very much over to the German approach.
Rufus advises tact, and putting yourself in the horse's place. Rather than try what seems logical to you, think about what is logical to the horse you are riding. If you have a well-schooled but impetuous horse,
don’t start off by galloping round the field and then expecting the horse to
settle to schooling now that you have thoroughly worked it up. But if the same
horse frets at the back of the hunting field, let him go along in front for a while,
so that having temporarily given in you can get him back to what you want
through tact and guile.
 |
| John Thorburn – Hildebrand |
I don't claim to be an expert rider (very, very far from) but the small riding success I have had is in trying to meet a horse at least half way. So, writing many decades later, I have to say I am pretty much
in agreement with ‘Rufus’. I find watching Badminton, and its ilk more and more
difficult as, whether for reasons of commercial imperative or sheer
competitiveness, the role of the horse as ‘a willing co-operator*’, as a
partner, is ignored by a small but definite percentage of riders. And in the
wider equestrian world, the latest gadget or practice, whether it be the flash
noseband, crank noseband, or rollkur is (mis)used to force the horse into
obedience.
***
* John Thorburn’s Hildebrand
(Country Life, 1930), is a fantasy about a horse who has ceased to be ‘a
willing co-operator’. As Hildebrand is also blessed with considerable brains
and the ability to talk, tact and guile (or possibly outright bribery) would be
the only ways to persuade him to even
consider doing what you would like him to do. You can read more about John Thorburn on my website.
Comments