Early Modern French Noble Identity and the Equestrian “Airs above the Ground”

Early Modern Cultural Studies 1500-1700

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 273-309

  Tucker, Treva J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Late Sixteenth; Military Function; Military Service; Seventeenth Century; Sixteenth Century

Indexed keywords

EID: 85145241953     PISSN: 26345897     EISSN: 26345900     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-137-09725-5_11     Document Type: Chapter

References (51)

1. The arguments in this chapter pertain specifically to the traditional French nobles and not to those who had achieved their noble status through service in royal office—the civil, bureaucratic, or robe nobility. The secondary literature that discusses the various challenges faced by the traditional French nobility during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (including those posed by the robe nobility) is vast. Some of the more important recent monographs include Jonathan Dewald, The Formation of a Provincial Nobility: The Magistrates of the Parlement of Rouen, 1499–1610 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980); James B. Wood, The Nobility of the Election of Bayeux, 1463–1666: Continuity through Change (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980); William Beik, Absolutism and Society in Seventeenth-Century France: State Power and Provincial Aristocracy in Languedoc (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1985); Arlette Jouanna, Le Devoir de révolte: La Noblesse française et la gestation de l’état moderne (1559–1661) (Paris: Fayard, 1989); J. Russell Major, From Renaissance Monarchy to Absolute Monarchy: French Kings, Nobles, and Estates (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994); Donna Bohanan, Old and New Nobility in Aix-en-Provence, 1600–1695: Portrait of an Urban Elite (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1992); Donna Bohanan, Crown and Nobility in Early Modern France (New York: Palgrave, 2001). Many of these books also discuss how nobility was defined and how that definition changed over time (cf. sources in n. 2) and/or how the nobility’s ability to adapt to its changing circumstances ultimately allowed it to overcome the challenges it faced during this period (cf. sources in n. 4).
2. In addition to the more general literature on the nobility listed in the previous note, monographs that deal specifically with how the nobles themselves defined nobility in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries include André Devyver, Le Sang épuré: Les Préjugés de race chez les gentilshommes français de l’Ancien Régime (1560–1720) (Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1973); Arlette Jouanna, Ordre social: Mythes et hiérarchies dans la France du XVIe siècle (Paris: Hachette, 1977); Ellery Schalk, From Valor to Pedigree: Ideas of Nobility in France in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); Jean-Marie Constant, La Noblesse française aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles (Paris: Hachette, 1994).
3. The old view of the early modern French nobility as refusing to abandon its outdated belief system and sliding into a state of hopeless decline as a result has been debunked by recent scholarship such as that listed in n. 1; the last major monograph to make that argument was Davis Bitton, The French Nobility in Crisis, 1560–1640 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1969). The other side of that coin—a nobility that was willing not only to abandon its belief system but to do so with stunning alacrity—has been argued by Ellery Schalk in From Valor to Pedigree. Schalk maintains that the French nobility responded to the accumulating pressures of the late sixteenth century by jettisoning traditional noble vertu as a defining characteristic and rather abruptly adopting in its place an identity based almost entirely on birth.
4. In addition to the literature on the definition of nobility listed in n. 2, the following are particularly useful on ways in which the nobility adapted to change while simultaneously maintaining its traditions: Roger Mettam, Power and Faction in Louis XIV’s France (New York: Blackwell, 1988); Kristen Neuschel, Word of Honor: Interpreting Noble Culture in Sixteenth-Century France (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989); Jonathan Dewald, Aristocratic Experience and the Origins of Modern Culture: France, 1570–1715 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993); Jay M. Smith, The Culture of Merit: Nobility, Royal Service, and the Making of the Absolute Monarchy in France, 1600–1789 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996). The gradual shift in noble identity was a large part of this adaptive process, which ultimately allowed the nobility to retain its position and importance in French society, politics, and culture, rather than collapsing under the combined weight of the various challenges it faced during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.
5. Other qualities considered quintessentially noble at this time included a certain type of lifestyle, the legal or customary right to various privileges, recognition by the larger social collective, and—most importantly—noble ancestry.
6. How and why military service originally came to be a central attribute of nobility in France, and how and why military service specifically came to mean armored and mounted service, fall outside the parameters of this chapter. For a good overview of those developments, see Constance Brittain Bouchard, “Strong of Body, Brave and Noble”: Chivalry and Society in Medieval France (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998), especially chs. 1 and 2.
7. By the sixteenth century, French nobles enjoyed a wide range of both legally mandated privileges and purely customary perks; for details, see Schalk, Valor to Pedigree, 146–48; Arlette Jouanna, “Des ‘gros et gras’ aux ‘gens d’honneur,’ ” in Histoire des élites en France du XVIe au XXe siècle: L’Honneur, le mérite, l’argent, ed. Guy Chaussinand-Nogaret (Paris: Tallandier, 1991), 43–44; John David Nordhaus, Arma et Litterae: The Education of the Noblesse de Race in Sixteenth-Century France (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1974), 19–20, 28–30; Jean-Pierre Labatut, Les Noblesses européennes de la fin du XVe siècle à la fin du XVIIIe siècle (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1978), 10; Frederic J. Baumgartner, France in the Sixteenth Century (New York: St. Martin’s, 1995), 47; Philippe Contamine, La Noblesse au royaume de France de Philippe le Bel à Louis XII: Essai de synthèse (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1997), 332.
8. Regarding the reemphasis of the links between noble status and military service, especially after the establishment of the royal ordinance companies in 1445 and then again with the advent of the Hapsburg–Valois Wars in 1494, see Schalk, Valor to Pedigree, 12; Labatut, Noblesses européennes, 85; Contamine, Noblesse au royaume de France, 329; Philippe Contamine, Guerre, état et société à la fin du Moyen Age: Etudes sur les armées des rois de France, 1337–1494 (Paris: Mouton, 1972), 470–72, 475–76, 479–80, 550; Jouanna, Devoir de révolte, 42–43; Jouanna, Ordre social, 61, 140; André Corvisier, “La Noblesse militaire: Aspects militaires de la noblesse française du XVe au XVIIIe siècles; état des questions,” Histoire Sociale/Social History 11 (1978): 339–42.
9. James Supple, Arms versus Letters: The Military and Literary Ideals in the “Essais” of Montaigne (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), 12. Supple defines the Latin virtus not just as manliness but more specifically as strength or courage, which merely underlines the relationship between vertu and the nobility’s military function. Obviously, vertu so defined was an ideal that applied specifically to male members of the warrior nobility; see below for alternative views of virtue as seen by (also male) members of the civil–bureaucratic nobility. How these ideas played into the construction of male identity more generally is a topic that (again) falls outside the parameters of this chapter. A number of studies on the construction of masculinity have been carried out for the medieval period and for early modern England, but very little has appeared for early modern France. One recent exception is Kathleen P. Long (ed.), High Anxiety: Masculinity in Crisis in Early Modern France (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2002). Unfortunately, none of the essays in this collection deals with masculinity specifically in the context of noble identity.
10. Numerous contemporary sources discuss the meaning of this type of vertu, the overwhelming centrality of valor therein, and the belief that warfare was its optimal showcase. The work of Arlette Jouanna is particularly useful in this area; see her “Gros et gras,” 32–33, 35, 67; Devoir de révolte, 41, 44; Ordre social, 43–44, 82, 116, 139–41, 146, 203; “Perception et appréciation de l’anoblissement dans la France du XVIe siècle et du début du XVIIe siècle,” in L’Anoblissement en France, XVe–XVIIIe siècles: Théories et réalités, comp. Centre de Recherches sur les Origines de l’Europe Moderne de l’Université de Bordeaux III (Bordeaux: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme d’Aquitaine, 1985), 8, 18; “La Noblesse française et les valeurs guerrières au XVIe siècle,” in L’Homme de guerre au XVIe siècle, ed. Gabriel-André Pérouse, André Thierry, and André Tournon (Saint-Etienne, France: Publications de l’Université de Saint-Etienne, 1989), 207–9; “Les Gentilshommes français et leur rôle politique dans la seconde moitié du XVIe siècle et au début du XVIIe,” Il Pensiero Politico 10 (1977): 24; “Recherches sur la notion d’honneur au XVIe siècle,” Revue d’Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine 15 (1968): 605–6. Other sources include Supple, Arms versus Letters, 12, 172, 193; Labatut, Noblesses européennes, 87–88; Nordhaus, Arma et Litterae, 10–11, 35; Schalk, Valor to Pedigree, 21, 29–30; Ellery Schalk, “The Appearance and Reality of Nobility in France during the Wars of Religion: An Example of How Collective Attitudes Can Change,” Journal of Modern History 48 (1976): 22; Madeleine Lazard, Pierre de Bourdeille, seigneur de Brantôme (Paris: Fayard, 1995), 9; Pierre d’Origny, Le Hérault de la noblesse de France (Reims, France: Jean de Foigny, 1578; reprint, Paris: J. B. Dumoulin, 1875), 7, 19; François de la Noue, Discours politiques et militaires (Basle, Switzerland: François Forest, 1587; reprint, ed. F. E. Sutcliffe, Geneva, Switzerland: Droz, 1967), 231.
11. Throughout the first half of the sixteenth century, texts written about nobility abound with examples that reveal these assumptions. On the roles played in the definition of nobility both by vertu and by valor in combat (i.e., by military service, often referred to in contemporary texts as the nobility’s “vocation” or “métier”), see Jouanna, “Gros et gras,” 17, 21–22, 30; Jouanna, Devoir de révolte, 40, 44; Jouanna, Ordre social, 22, 60–61, 116, 139–40, 191–92; Jouanna, “Valeurs guerrières,” 207; Jouanna, “Notion d’honneur,” 603; Schalk, Valor to Pedigree, xiv–xv, 3–11, 21, 26–30, 53–55, 202; Schalk, “Appearance and Reality,” 20–23; Labatut, Noblesses européennes, 85–86; Lazard, Brantôme, 9; Supple, Arms versus Letters, 186; Origny, Hérault, 19, 23, 37; Roger Chartier, “La Noblesse française et les états généraux de 1614: Une Réaction aristocratique?” in Représentation et vouloir politiques: Autour des Etats généraux de 1614, ed. Roger Chartier and Denis Richet (Paris: Editions de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 1982), 120–21.
12. La Noue, Discours, 363, 370, 375; Treva J. Tucker, “Eminence over Efficacy: Social Status and Cavalry Service in Sixteenth-Century France,” Sixteenth Century Journal 23 (2001): 1063, 1065; Claude Gaier, “L’Opinion des chefs de guerre français du XVIe siècle sur les progrès de l’art militaire,” Revue Internationale d’Histoire Militaire 29 (1970): 743; David Eltis, The Military Revolution in Sixteenth-Century Europe (London: Tauris, 1995), 23, 46–47, 50; Charles Oman, A History of the Art of War in the Sixteenth Century (New York: Dutton, 1937; reprint, New York: AMS, 1979), 33, 44, 224; John Ellis, Cavalry: The History of Mounted Warfare (New York: Putnam, 1978), 78–79.
13. Tucker, “Eminence over Efficacy,” 1065; Gaier, “Chefs de guerre,” 743; Eltis, Military Revolution, 23, 44, 49–51; Oman, War in the Sixteenth Century, 35; Bert S. Hall, Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology, and Tactics (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997), 186–87; Archer Jones, The Art of War in the Western World (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1987), 191.
14. On the development of artillery-resistant fortresses and their effect on military strategy in general and on heavy cavalry in particular, see Baumgartner, France, 156; Hall, Weapons and Warfare, 164–65, 210–11; David Potter, War and Government in the French Provinces: Picardy 1470–1560 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 157; Geoffrey Parker, “The Military Revolution, 1560–1660—A Myth?” in The Military Revolution Debate: Readings on the Military Transformation of Early Modern Europe, ed. Clifford J. Rogers (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1995), 41–42; Geoffrey Parker, “In Defense of The Military Revolution” (referencing his The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West, 1500–1800, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988), in Military Revolution Debate, 337–38, 345–50. Eltis, Military Revolution, 29–30, makes the excellent additional point that siege warfare increased during this period not only in response to the development of new types of fortifications but also because any fortress—new or old—could be defended more effectively due to improvements in artillery. This helps to explain why sieges overshadowed battles even in those areas where the new fortresses were uncommon or even entirely absent, a circumstance that admittedly held true for certain parts of France.
15. On the rise of the mounted pistoleer and his arms, armor, mount, and mobility, see Tucker, “Eminence over Efficacy,” 1061–62, 1068–69, and sources cited there, especially in nn. 11, 12, 39, and 40.
16. Ellis, Cavalry, 61, 65; Parker, “Myth,” 44; Parker, “In Defense,” 351; James B. Wood, The King’s Army: Warfare, Soldiers, and Society during the Wars of Religion in France, 1562–1576 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 135–36; Frank Tallett, War and Society in Early-Modern Europe, 1495–1715 (New York: Routledge, 1992), 29–30.
17. David Parrott, “Richelieu, the Grands, and the French Army,” in Richelieu and His Age, ed. Joseph Bergin and Laurence Brockliss (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 143.
18. Jouanna, “Gros et gras,” 36–37; Jouanna, Devoir de révolte, 42; Jouanna, Ordre social, 22, 139, 180; Jouanna, “Valeurs guerrières,” 214; Jouanna, “Rôle politique,” 34; Jouanna, “Notion d’honneur,” 605; Supple, Arms versus Letters, 77–78; Chartier, “Etats généraux,” 121–22; Devyver, Sang épuré, 76–77; Dewald, Aristocratic Experience, 22; Eugene F. Rice, Jr., “Humanism in France,” in Humanism beyond Italy, vol. 2 of Renaissance Humanism: Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, ed. Albert Rabil, Jr. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), 119–20; Roger Mettam, “The French Nobility, 1610–1715,” in Western Europe, vol. 1 of The European Nobilities in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, ed. H. M. Scott (New York: Longman, 1995), 115, 118.
19. Jouanna, “Gros et gras,” 36–37, 114; Jouanna, Devoir de révolte, 42; Jouanna, Ordre social, 61, 149, 204; Jouanna, “Perception et appré-ciation,” 16; Jouanna, “Valeurs guerrières,” 214; Jouanna, “Notion d’honneur,” 606; Schalk, Valor to Pedigree, 57; Corvisier, “Noblesse militaire,” 344; Lazard, Brantôme, 17; Devyver, Sang épuré, 77.
20. Schalk, Valor to Pedigree, 106, 117–18; Lazard, Brantôme, 17; Devyver, Sang épuré, 228–29; Rice, “Humanism in France,” 120.
21. The material that follows was drawn from a modern English translation of Il cortegiano: Baldessare Castiglione, The Book of the Courtier, trans. Leonard Eckstein Opdycke, rev. ed. (New York: Horace Liveright, 1929). Other influential examples of early modern courtly literature include Eustache du Refuge, Traité de la cour, ou instruction des courtisans, 1616; Nicolas Faret, L’Honnête Homme, ou l’art de plaire à la cour, 1630; Baltasar Gracián, Oráculo manual y arte de prudencia, 1647. This courtly literature should not be confused with another, preexisting literary tradition, frequently referred to as courtesy books—that is, manuals of civility, manners, and etiquette. These books, many of which were essentially instructional texts, were intended for a wide range of readers (including, but certainly not limited to, the nobility) who aspired to function more smoothly and effectively in the upper echelons of society and in public office in general, and not specifically for that tiny minority who hoped to make a career at court, the vast majority of whom were nobly born. Although this type of literature already had a long history before the sixteenth century, as “civility” became more important in society in general, courtesy books proliferated and enjoyed wide popularity. Some outstanding titles of the period include Desiderius Erasmus, De civilitate morum puerilium, 1530; Giovanni della Casa, Il Galateo, 1558; Stefano Guazzo, La civil conversazione, 1574.
22. For a representative selection of Castiglione’s views on grace and sprezzatura, see The Courtier, 30–31, 34–35, 37.
23. The académies were intended exclusively for the education of the hereditary nobility. Although they offered instruction in subjects other than horsemanship, the amount of time devoted to mounted activities outweighed that devoted to all the other topics combined. Sources on these establishments are scarce; a fairly comprehensive selection of the available secondary material in French and English includes Schalk, “Education, the Academies, and the Emergence of the New Image of the Cultured Noble-Aristocrat,” ch. 8 in Valor to Pedigree; Mark Motley, “The Academy,” ch. 3 in Becoming a French Aristocrat: The Education of the Court Nobility, 1580–1715 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990); Commandant de la Roche [no first name given], “Les Académies militaires sous l’Ancien Régime, d’après des documents inédits,” Revue des Etudes Historiques (1929): 409–18; Maurice Dumolin, “Les Académies parisiennes d’équitation,” Bulletin de la Société Archéologique, Historique et Artistique le Vieux Papier 111 (1925): 417–28, 112 (1925): 485–94, and 113 (1926): 556–72 (issues 111 and 112 are the most relevant); Lucien Hoche, “Pluvinel et les académies,” app. 23 in Contribution à l’histoire de Paris: Paris occidental, XIIe siècle–XIXe siècle (Paris: Henri Leclerc, 1912); Albert Folly, “Les Académies d’armes (XVIe et XVIIe siècles),” Bulletin de la Société du VIe Arrondissement de Paris 2 (1899): 162–71; Albert Babeau, “Les Académies,” ch. 4 in Les Officiers, vol. 2 of La Vie militaire sous l’Ancien Régime, 2nd edn. (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1890); see also Nordhaus, Arma et Litterae, 118–21, 220–26; Hubert de Terrebasse, Antoine de Pluvinel, dauphinois, 1552–1620 (Lyon: L. Brun, 1911), 5–6, 13–15, 19, 24. These noble académies are not to be confused with the literary, artistic, or scientific académies, such as the Académie Française, that also were founded in France from the late sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries but for entirely different purposes.
24. To give some idea of the numbers involved, a thorough but by no means all-inclusive search of the bibliographic sources yielded 42 texts dealing with the art of riding and training horses and written in Italian, English, French, and Spanish between 1550 (the date of the first extant early modern treatise on riding) and 1661 (the beginning of the personal reign of Louis XIV, during which the shift from the medieval to the early modern definition of nobility in France was completed); the vast majority of the 42 treatises were written by noblemen. If the cutoff date were extended to 1800, if all European languages and Latin were included, and/or if texts dealing with equestrian matters other than horsemanship (e.g., veterinary care, shoeing, breeding, horse management, or cavalry) were counted, the number would be much higher. Of the available hippobibliographies, the most exhaustive are Frederick H. Huth, Works on Horses and Equitation: A Bibliographical Record of Hippology (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1887); Gabriel René Mennessier de la Lance, Essai de bibli-ographie hippique, 2 vols. (Paris: Lucien Dorbon, 1915–17; supplement, 1921); Ellen B. Wells, Horsemanship: A Bibliography of Printed Materials from the Sixteenth Century through 1974 (New York: Garland Publishing, 1985).
25. In some cases first editions were not available and a later, somewhat revised edition had to be used. The editions actually consulted are as follows: Salomon de la Broue, Le Cavalerice françois, contenant les preceptes principaux qu’il faut observer exactement pour bien dresser les chevaux . . ., 2nd rev. exp. edn. (Paris: Abel l’Angelier, 1602 (bk. 1) and 1608 (bk. 2)); René de Menou de Charnizay, La Pratique du cavalier, ou l’exercice de monter à cheval . . ., rev. exp. edn. (Paris: Guillaume and Jean Baptiste Loyson, 1650); Pierre de la Noue, La Cavalerie françoise et italienne, ou l’art de bien dresser les chevaux, selon les preceptes des bonnes écoles des deux nations . . . (Strasbourg: Jac. de Heyden, 1620); Antoine de Pluvinel, L’Instruction du roy en l’exercice de monter à cheval (Paris: Michel Nivelle, 1625); Delcampe [no first name given], L’Art de monter à cheval: qui monstre la belle & facille methode de se rendre bon homme de cheval, 2nd rev. exp. edn. (Paris: Jacques le Gras, 1664); Georges Guillet de St. George, Les Arts de l’homme d’epée, ou le dictionnaire du gentilhomme (The Hague: Adrian Moetjens, 1680). The first edition of La Broue’s treatise appeared under a slightly variant title, Preceptes principaux que les bons cavalerices doivent exactement observer… pour bien dresser les chevaux….
26. That the pesade was not viewed as being in the same category as the truly high airs, at least during the first two-thirds of the seventeenth century, is evidenced by its absence from the lists of commonly practiced airs relevés offered by the various authors; see La Broue, Cavalerice françois, bk. 1, 140; La Noue, Cavalerie françoise et italienne, 112; Pluvinel, Instruction du roy, 118; Menou, Pratique du cavalier, 112; Delcampe, Art de monter à cheval, 190. These lists vary somewhat in their content—some include only the high airs, i.e., the courbette and the capriole and the latter’s various derivative forms (see n. 43), whereas others include both the high airs and the terre à terre, a movement that was essentially a less elevated version of and preliminary to the courbette (see n. 38 and related text)—but none of the lists includes the pesade. La Broue, writing at the very beginning of the seventeenth century, does include something called pesade saut de mouton in his list of high airs, but only to say that it no longer is performed; he does not define the move, so it is impossible to know how it differed from a regular pesade, although the inclusion of the word “saut” (jump) would imply that it involved some sort of aerial activity, which the standard pesade did not.
27. That all horses were expected to master the pesade is largely implicit rather than explicit in these texts. La Noue, Cavalerie françoise et italienne, 114, 136, and Guillet, Arts de l’homme d’épée, 105, are the only authors to flatly state that the pesade is the foundation for all the high airs, even the fairly mundane courbette. On the other hand, the descriptions of the training progression in all the treatises make it clear that only those horses that have mastered the art of raising their forehands could be expected to perform any of the higher airs, all of which are taught from that basic movement. Several of the authors concede that not all horses are suitable for the lofty activities of the manège, and horses that failed to master the pesade, the basic building block for the more complex movements, therefore were unlikely to have enjoyed prolonged careers there. Such hapless clods almost certainly were banished to less exalted pursuits, where the ability to leap prettily about was not a prerequisite for success.
28. That the courbette was universally considered to be one of the high airs is evidenced by its presence in all of the lists cited in n. 27. Both La Broue, Cavalerice françois, bk. 1, 140, and La Noue, Cavalerie françoise et italienne, 112, 116, explicitly identify it as the easiest of the high airs. In Pluvinel, Menou, and Delcampe, this belief is more implicit than explicit, i.e., these authors freely acknowledge that only some horses are able to perform the capriole and its related forms, whereas nothing of the sort is said about the courbette. It is clear from the texts that most or all manège horses were expected to master this movement, as so many of the other movements could not be performed properly (or at least in their most “perfect” form) without it. Like the pesade, the courbette was so fundamental to the practice of manège riding that horses that failed to grasp its intricacies almost certainly were shuffled off to less glorious pursuits.
29. La Broue, Cavalerice françois, bk. 1, 138; La Noue, Cavalerie françoise et italienne, 111; Pluvinel, Instruction du roy, 51; Menou, Pratique du cavalier, 112–13; Delcampe, Art de monter à cheval, 229, 231. Pluvinel, Menou, and Delcampe all agree that the ability to perform the high airs is a gift of nature, thus underscoring the fact that not all horses are so gifted.
30. The capriole variations included the balotade, the croupade, and un pas et un saut. For descriptions of these airs, see n. 43.
31. For descriptions of the pesade and its purpose, see La Broue, Cavalerice françois, bk. 1, 149; La Noue, Cavalerie françoise et italienne, 114, 116; Guillet, Arts de l’homme d’épée, 105. Pluvinel, Menou, and Delcampe do not use the term pesade, but instead refer merely to lever le devant or lever devant, although Delcampe occasionally does use the term posade (according to Guillet, Arts de l’homme d’épée, 114, an alternative spelling for pesade). Pluvinel also refers to the courbette en une place or courbette ferme à ferme (in one place) and seems to use this term as an alternative to lever le devant—a rather interesting choice, given that the quality of a true courbette was judged in part on the proper motion of the hind feet and therefore in theory could not be performed en une place or ferme à ferme (see sources cited in n. 39). Regardless of the nomenclature, it is clear from the way in which the movement is discussed in the texts of Pluvinel, Menou, and Delcampe, and from the contexts in which it is used, that it is indeed the same as the pesade, although none of these authors defines the movement or its purpose as clearly as the other three. For those familiar with the airs above the ground as they are performed today, for example by the Lipizzan stallions of the Spanish Riding School in Vienna, there are several differences between the seventeenth-century pesade and its modern counterpart, the levade. The first concerns the angle of the horse’s body to the ground. In the pesade, the horse lifted its forehand to an angle of roughly 45 degrees to the ground; in the levade, the angle is only around 30 degrees, which requires far more strength and balance on the part of the horse. Second, the modern movement is considered to be one of the airs above the ground and thus an end in itself, rather than primarily a training aide for the other high airs. Third, the horse is expected to remain in levade for as long as its strength and balance will allow, rather than only long enough to establish the pose before coming back down.
32. On training the horse to pesade, the various types of resistance the trainer might expect to encounter, and the relevant remedies, see La Broue, Cavalerice françois, bk. 1, 148–49; La Noue, Cavalerie françoise et italienne, 114–15; Pluvinel, Instruction du roy, 46–50; Menou, Pratique du cavalier, 42, 91–92; Delcampe, Art de monter à cheval, 35–36. Pluvinel and (especially) La Noue are particularly useful for the more hair-raising forms of resistance.
33. See, for example, La Broue, Cavalerice françois, bk. 1, 49, 60, 62, 79, 83; La Noue, Cavalerie françoise et italienne, 10–13, 111; Pluvinel, Instruction du roy, 3, 15–17, 26, 29, 38–39, 48, 73, 123, 132, 144–45; Menou, Pratique du cavalier, 18, 32, 35, 59–61, 64, 72–73, 113, 116, 137–38; Delcampe, Art de monter à cheval, 34, 233–34. For additional details on why falling off was viewed as behavior totally unsuited to a gentleman, see n. 49.
34. Part of the reason these horsemen stressed the intellectual qualities needed by the rider was because of the way in which they viewed the nature of the horse. Contemporary science and philosophy portrayed animals as unreasoning forces of nature that had to be forcefully dominated and subdued by rational human intelligence or will. In contrast, the authors of these treatises granted the horse a considerable capacity to think and to feel, even if they did not put equine “reason-ing” on a par with human. Horses nonetheless were seen as having at least some capacity to participate in the training process, at least to the extent that riders had to take into consideration their mounts’ thoughts and feelings—as well as their innate talents and limitations— if the training process were to succeed. This view of the horse is revealed by the anthropomorphized language used by the authors to describe the training process: the rider clearly retains intellectual superiority, but the equine “mind” with which he is grappling is described as responding and functioning in very human ways. For additional details, see the chapters by Pia Cuneo (5) and (especially) Elisabeth LeGuin (6) in this collection, as well as Karen Raber, “Reasonable Creatures: William Cavendish and the Art of Dressage,” in Renaissance Culture and the Everyday, ed. Patricia Fumerton and Simon Hunt (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999).
35. For a sampling of the more “cerebral” qualities needed by the rider and why they are necessary, see La Broue, Cavalerice françois, bk. 1, 3, 49–51, 74, 118, 153, 174; bk. 2, 8, 56–57, 70–71, 125–26, 158, 163, 173–74; La Noue, Cavalerie françoise et italienne, 14, 40, 60, 65, 111; Pluvinel, Instruction du roy, 2–3, 9–10, 19–20, 31, 36, 40, 48–50, 59, 66–67, 82–83, 85, 89–90, 94, 97, 99–100, 106, 125, 133–34, 144–45; Menou, Pratique du cavalier, 25–26, 75–76, 109, 113, 155; Delcampe, Art de monter à cheval, 29–30, 40–42, 88–89, 230, 281–82. All these texts are littered with references to the particular importance of using one’s judgment when riding and training— for example, to assess a given horse’s capabilities and temperament, or to choose which training technique to employ with a given horse in a given situation. Several authors emphasize the concept that there can be no fixed rules in horsemanship. A technique that worked for one horse in a particular situation may not work for another horse in the same situation, while a technique that worked for a particular horse in one situation may not work for that same horse in another situation. (Those who ride will know that this can be taken yet further, i.e., a technique that worked for a particular horse in a particular situation on one day may not work for that same horse in that same situation on the next day, simply due to fluctuations in equine mood.) Precisely because riding follows no rules, the rider constantly must exercise his judgment (not to mention his vast store of knowledge) in order to make the adjustments dictated by the circumstances of the moment.
36. For those familiar with the courbette as it is performed today, it should be emphasized that the sixteenth-and seventeenth-century movement of the same name was totally different from its modern counterpart. In the modern courbette, the horse rears up fully and then hops forward on its hind legs as many times as its strength and balance will permit; the forelegs never touch the ground. Some of the confusion about the early modern movement may be the result of illustrations in contemporary texts of the balotade (see n. 43), which resembles the airborne moment in the modern courbette. Under what circumstances and at what point in time the latter was developed, and why it bears the name of a movement that originally differed from it fairly dramatically, unfortunately is not known to me at this time.
37. Guillet, Arts de l’homme d’épée, 128–29. Guillet, whose text is a dictionary of equestrian terms rather than a riding and training manual, is the only author who defines the terre à terre. The other five authors make repeated references to this movement but never actually describe it, leaving one with the impression that this air was so common at the time these men were writing that they felt no more need to define it than to define the walk, trot, or canter. As was the case with both the pesade and the courbette, it is clear from these texts that all manège horses were expected to master the terre à terre.
38. For descriptions of the courbette, see La Broue, Cavalerice françois, bk. 1, 149; La Noue, Cavalerie françoise et italienne, 114, 116; Delcampe, Art de monter à cheval, 191; Guillet, Arts de l’homme d’épée, 40–41. Both Pluvinel and Menou make frequent reference to this air but never define it as clearly as the others.
39. Interestingly, none of the texts consulted says anything about the actual training process for the terre à terre, although all of them mention it (some more frequently than others) in the context of more complex movements such as voltes or passades. Pluvinel, Instruction du roy, 45–46, claims that he is going to discuss how to train horses to do the terre à terre, but in fact he passes straight to training the horse to lever le devant (i.e., to pesade) as a preparation for teaching it the courbette; the terre à terre never really is mentioned again in this passage. The premise that at least some horses would have objected to and tried to avoid the demands of the terre à terre therefore is extrapolated, in part from descriptions of the training process for other airs, gaits, and movements, and in part from my own experience training various types of horses to collect.
40. See, for example, La Broue, Cavalerice françois, bk. 1, 140–44, 149–56; La Noue, Cavalerie françoise et italienne, 116–20; Pluvinel, Instruction du roy, 50–55. These authors discuss (both in the pages just cited and elsewhere in their respective volumes) the training methods not only for the basic movement but also for its use as part of more complex maneuvers such as voltes and passades. La Broue provides the most details on the training process and its challenges. He emphasizes that training a horse to courbette takes time and that some horses simply cannot (or will not) do it, although it is clear from the text preceding the latter statement that all horses destined for the manège are expected to be able to do it. Delcampe defines the courbette clearly (see n. 39), but he does not discuss how it is taught; Menou neither defines it nor discusses the training process. In both cases, it almost seems to be assumed that the horse will fall naturally into this cadence when the circumstances are right. Neither author appears to address what must have been the far more common instance of a horse that failed to produce the courbette spontaneously, without benefit of any formal training.
41. La Broue and La Noue are the most explicit on the lack of congruity between the hot-tempered horse and the subjugation of collection in general and of the courbette in particular; see La Broue, Cavalerice françois, bk. 1, 98, 147, 158; bk. 2, 29; La Noue, Cavalerie françoise et italienne, 113–14, 128. Although these authors do not specify why the courbette in particular is so troublesome in this regard, it seems reasonable to surmise that the contradictory demands of the movement contributed to its special status. Specifically on horses that respond to constraint by launching themselves into the air, see La Broue, Cavalerice françois, bk. 1, 147; Pluvinel, Instruction du roy, 51; Menou, Pratique du cavalier, 112.
42. For descriptions of the capriole, see La Broue, Cavalerice françois, bk. 1, 168; La Noue, Cavalerie françoise et italienne, 112, 135; Pluvinel, Instruction du roy, 118; Menou, Pratique du cavalier, 114; Delcampe, Art de monter à cheval, 193–94; Guillet, Arts de l’homme d’épée, 30. La Broue, La Noue, and Guillet stress that the horse must come down as close as possible to the spot whence it took off; Pluvinel, Menou, and Delcampe maintain that this air also may be performed going forward or sideways or on a circle. For those familiar with the modern capriole, the early modern movement was virtually identical, except that today the horse always is supposed to come down as close as possible to the place from which it took off and only a single capriole ever is performed. Finally, now that the capriole has been described, the variations referred to earlier may be defined. The balotade is identical to the capriole, except that the horse does not lash out with its hind legs at the highest point of the leap but keeps them fully curled under its body. The croupade also is identical to the capriole, except that at the highest point of the leap the horse again does not lash out with its hind legs but moves them back only far enough to show its hind shoes. Un pas et un saut alternates a courbette (the pas, or step) and a capriole (the saut, or jump). It was considered less taxing than caprioles alone, as the courbette phase allowed the horse a brief recovery period before it was asked for another capriole. These definitions are from Guillet, Arts de l’homme d’épée, 15, 44–45, 100–1; see also La Broue, Cavalerice françois, bk. 1, 145–46, 171; La Noue, Cavalerie françoise et italienne, 124, 138; Pluvinel, Instruction du roy, 139; Menou, Pratique du cavalier, 147, 150–51; Delcampe, Art de monter à cheval, 192, 196, 266–67, 275, 277–78. Pluvinel does not mention the balotade or the croupade; La Broue and La Noue clump them together under the same heading (croupade in La Broue’s case, balotade in La Noue’s), although La Broue never really defines the movement; and Menou and Delcampe define them exactly as Guillet does. As for un pas et un saut, there is a little more disagreement there. La Broue, La Noue, and Menou agree with Guillet’s definition but specify that the courbette is to be a very low one— almost a stride of terre à terre rather than a true courbette. Pluvinel and Delcampe differ from Guillet, stating that the pas phase actually consists of two “steps,” only one of which is a full courbette. Pluvinel specifies that the second step is to be a stride of terre à terre, while Delcampe leaves the second step’s precise contours rather vague; cf. Guillet’s definition of deux pas et un saut (101).
43. It is difficult to ignore the parallels in the qualities possessed by the ideal equine caprioleur and those possessed by the nobleman of true vertu. Unfortunately, the only time the authors use these terms to describe a horse is when they are discussing horses suited specifically to the most dramatic of the high airs. Since these animals were far more the exception than the rule, the parallels do not appear to lead anywhere very fruitful. On the other hand, the manuals frequently make reference to the need for the rider not to dominate or suppress but to control and direct his horse’s feistier qualities, which presents many interesting and potentially fruitful parallels to the histories of control, discipline, civility, the body, and so on. For example, just as the rider of this period must shape and monitor the nature, body, and impulses of his horse, so the “civilized” nobleman of this period must shape and monitor his own nature, body, and impulses. This is, however, a complex topic that falls beyond the parameters of this chapter and must await another day; in the meantime, the three chapters in the “Discipline and Control” section of this volume explore various aspects of this topic, as does Raber, “Reasonable Creatures,” 54–58.
44. On the ideal qualities and temperament of the caprioleur, as well as the character defects that often accompany that temperament, see La Broue, Cavalerice françois, bk. 1, 165; La Noue, Cavalerie françoise et italienne, 124; Pluvinel, Instruction du roy, 119, 122–23, 125, 132; Menou, Pratique du cavalier, 116, 118, 137–38; Delcampe, Art de monter à cheval, 235–36; see also Guillet, Arts de l’homme d’épée, 6, 85, for definitions of terms pertaining to lightness (allegerir and leger). All five trainers emphasize that very few horses are capable of or suited to this exceptionally difficult and demanding maneuver; even Guillet mentions when defining the capriole (30) that it is the most difficult of the high airs. On the temperament (both good and bad) typical of horses with a gift for the high airs in a more general sense (i.e., both the capriole and its variations), see La Broue, Cavalerice françois, bk. 2, 29; La Noue, Cavalerie françoise et italienne, 112–13, 128; Pluvinel, Instruction du roy, 123; Menou, Pratique du cavalier, 116; Delcampe, Art de monter à cheval, 233–34.
45. Pluvinel, Instruction du roy, 123; Menou, Pratique du cavalier, 116.
46. On the qualities needed by the rider specifically for the successful performance of the capriole and the reasons for which he needed them, see Pluvinel, Instruction du roy, 123–24, 133; Menou, Pratique du cavalier, 116, 138–39, 143; Delcampe, Art de monter à cheval, 251–53.
47. On the importance of grace and sprezzatura when riding, and especially when riding before an audience, including how those qualities were to be displayed in a mounted context and what would happen to riders who failed to do so, see La Broue, Cavalerice françois, bk. 1, 47, 122–23, 139, 173; La Noue, Cavalerie françoise et italienne, 32–34; Pluvinel, Instruction du roy, 9, 12, 58–59, 72, 75–76, 90, 92–93, 120–21, 140, 142–43; Menou, Pratique du cavalier, 25, 105–7, 152; Delcampe, Art de monter à cheval, 10–11. Pluvinel’s text in particular is filled with references to the importance of grace on the part of both horse and rider.
48. La Broue, Cavalerice françois, bk. 1, 171–73; La Noue, Cavalerie françoise et italienne, 128; Pluvinel, Instruction du roy, 138, 140; Menou, Pratique du cavalier, 146; Delcampe, Art de monter à cheval, 263, 279–80. Like the concepts of grace and sprezzatura, these ideas regarding the relationship between rare or difficult things, correct performance, and the esteem of others come straight out of Castiglione: “Everyone knows the difficulty of those things that are rare and well done, and therefore facility in them excites the highest admiration; while on the other hand, to strive . . . is extremely ungraceful, and makes us esteem everything slightly, however great it be” (The Courtier, 35). It is for this reason that falling off, even when performing a movement as difficult as the capriole, was such a disaster for a nobleman. Just as retaining one’s position and nonchalant demeanor while one’s horse behaved badly was viewed with approval, so parting company with one’s horse under the same circumstances was viewed quite harshly. Falling off was seen as a spectacular failure not only of the rider’s skill, strength, grace, and sprezzatura but also of his good judgment: if he was not ready to perform in the fashion considered appropriate to a gentleman, then he should never have made the attempt in the first place. The rider’s peers thus would assume that he fell because he lacked the requisite qualities of true noblesse. The possible ramifications of such a judgment fall outside the parameters of this chapter, but they would not have been good and might have been appalling.
49. Although the sections on the capriole in all the sources have this premise as a sort of running subtext, some authors are quite explicit. For some particularly flowery accolades on the capriole as the ne plus ultra of mounted achievements, see Pluvinel, Instruction du roy, 138; Menou, Pratique du cavalier, 146; Delcampe, Art de monter à cheval, 264.
50. The nobility’s links to mounted military service were sustained less by manège equitation and the high airs than by various types of mounted pseudomilitary games. These games originated in earlier military and tournament practices, but by the early seventeenth century a successful performance depended on the mastery of skills related far more to the manège than to the battlefield. Such games nonetheless allowed the nobles temporarily to maintain the illusion that they were learning and practicing skills that would be useful to a heavy cavalryman and thus helped to insulate them from the shock of losing military service as a defining attribute.
51. A final note on the issue of belief versus behavior. This chapter argues that manège equitation helped the nobility as a whole to transition from an obsolete definition to a more relevant one by allowing nobles to practice elements of both definitions at the same time. The chapter does not claim that, as part of that process, manège equitation became a central attribute of the new definition. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that attending the académies in which this riding style was taught was very expensive, so only the upper echelons of the nobility could afford to learn it. However, the belief system that defined the contours of French noble identity always was formed by this small percentage at the top and then trickled down very gradually from there. By the time it reached the petty rural nobility, actual practice had little or nothing to do with the belief system. Just as the rural noble of ca. 1500 rarely had any real, actual, lived relationship to heavy cavalry service, so the rural noble of ca. 1700 rarely had one to manège equitation. That did not stop him, however, from believing that the qualities embodied by the mounted warrior (ca. 1500) or the mounted courtier (ca. 1700), none of which was limited to the mounted context, were the quintessence of nobleness. Manège equitation and the airs above the ground only had to serve the function for which this chapter argues in the narrow confines of that segment of the nobility that was and always had been the genesis of notions of noble identity. Nobles who fell outside that segment were less impacted by the actual means by which the upper echelons moved from the old definition to the new one than they were by the end product—in this case, the shift away from the highly militarized idea of nobility that prevailed coming out of the Middle Ages, and toward the “courtierized” idea of nobility that prevailed at Louis XIV’s Versailles.