Rapunzel Horses – the hot accessory of Early Modern Europe?

Screen Shot 2017-11-29 at 09.20.48
I’ve been reading beautifully illustrated books about horses all my life and in the last twelve years I’ve trawled all sorts of academic articles and image libraries, so it’s always delightful to find an image I’ve never seen before. The Palazzo Pitti in Florence just opened an exhibit called Leopoldo de’ Medici: Prince of the Collectors to celebrate what would have been the cardinal’s 400th birthday. Someone shared this image of the young Leopoldo in a Facebook group for Lipizzaner fans, and I was smitten. The 1624-1625 painting is by Justus Sustermans, a Flemish court painter to the infamous Medici clan. Look at the detail: the flecks of foam on the paving under the horse’s mouth, the way it’s patiently resting one hind hoof. What I’d give for a huge poster of it!
But of course the really striking thing is that MANE. ALL OF IT. Has anyone written about the meaning (if any?) of the turnout of court horses in the Early Modern era? I’ve seen great articles on baroque bits and read about the costumes worn in carrousels, but do we know anything about this commitment to hair? It’s not mentioned in the rather beautiful part of Guerinière’s The School of Horsemanship that describes exotic coat colours and the significance of whorls (read an earlier post about that here). But it does feature in other images, like those in the Certamen Equestre (Gallica has a facsimile online for extended tea-break consideration and these screengrabs are sourced there):

Screen Shot 2017-11-29 at 10.14.08

Screen Shot 2017-11-29 at 10.16.23

Screen Shot 2017-11-29 at 10.18.35

This book records a carrousel and procession that took place in Stockholm on 18 December 1672 to celebrate the coming of age of Karl XI at 17. It was illustrated by the court painter, David Klöcker Ehrenstrahl, and these plates were later engraved by Georg Christoph Eimmart in Nuremberg. Lena Rangström has written the most detailed account in volume II of Mulryne, Watanbe-O’Kelly and Shewring’s Europa Triumphans, a collection of studies of European court and civic festivals in the period.
Rangström describes the decking out of Stockholm with triumphal arches, tapestries, a firework display and even a wine fountain. The 560-strong procession, which included 100 nobles on horseback and 80 more horses led in hand, culminated at the tilt yard in the riding school at the Hay Market or Hötorget. It was meant to depict the young Karl as a force for unity in Europe against the Turk, and so he led the “Roman” quadrille, Field Marshall Gustaf Banér the “Turks” in their caftans, Count Bengt Oxenstierna led the “Poles” (see their “winged horses” below) and Privy Councillor Krister Horn was captain of the “European States” in modern dress. Here are images of the quadrilles:

Screen Shot 2017-11-29 at 10.11.43

Karl as a Roman. Certamen Equestre, via Gallica.


Screen Shot 2017-11-29 at 10.21.25

The “Turkish” horses in the Certamen Equestre, via Gallica. It looks as though all the Black grooms in Stockholm were drafted in to add extra “exotica” (oof).


Screen Shot 2017-11-29 at 10.15.04

“Polish” horses, Certamen Equestre, via Gallica.


Screen Shot 2017-11-29 at 10.17.37

“Europe” in the Certamen Equestre, via Gallica.

It was – of course – spectacular. “On knights and horses everything shimmered: gold, precious stones, and rich pearls,” says one account, and, “On the horses, one saw different ornaments on their heads, different ones on their feet, and different ones on the other parts of their bodies.” Pine branches hung from the ceiling and the riding school was lit by thousands of candles on hundreds of chandeliers against the dark Stockholm winter.
There was only one game – running at the ring – and the King won, for:

“None deserved it more, none knew how to control and turn his horse with such gentleness; nobody bore off the ring with such pleasing gestures and such grace of the whole body.”

Screen Shot 2017-11-29 at 10.19.15

For other long-haired horses stories, I present the eighteenth century Swan of Arnstadt and a nineteenth-century freak, The Wild King of Oregon Wonder Horses.

No, Horse Slaughter Won’t Solve the US Welfare Problem – Here’s Why

Embed from Getty Images

The US House Appropriations Committee has just voted to lift the ban on funding for federal inspections for horse slaughter, thus potentially paving the way for new US equine abattoirs to open up. I wrote extensively about the history of horsemeat in the USA in The Age of the Horse in order to try to explain how the ban came about in the first place. I’ve also written a brief summary for The Atlantic‘s Object Lessons blog (here).

Many are arguing that slaughter is good for the horse population as a whole, but unfortunately their arguments don’t work. The “greater welfare” argument has been part of the pro-hippophagy movement since the nineteenth century, but because of horsemeat’s status in the West and the way in which the meat industry in general has developed, it just doesn’t add up. Here’s why:

“Horse slaughter in the USA is more humane than horse slaughter in Mexico or Canada”

Well, no. The 2006/7 bans and the earlier ban in California came about in part because conditions were so bad in US slaughter plants and in transportation to those plants.

“At least the horses won’t have to travel so far”

Again, no. Before the ban horses were still shipped to Canada and Mexico. Furthermore, there were only three plants in the USA, which in itself involved long drives for many slaughter-bound horses. Why so few plants? Look at the meat industry in general – there’s a trend over a century long to reduce the number of processing locations.

“Horse slaughter increases the value of horses, leading to better conditions”

Nope. One of the reasons the US horsemeat business functioned was that the raw material was so cheap. The expense of breeding and raising the animals was undertaken by owners, not the horsemeat industry, who were able to snap up neglected, injured or sick horses at low prices at public auctions. In recent years, the horses shipped to Canada and Mexico for meat have also included the neglected, injured and sick. At an auction run and frequented by kill buyers in July 2014, I saw a starved horse and one with an open wound with what looked like bone sticking out of it. Not uncommon, according to those who observe auctions regularly.

The UK has legal and pretty highly regulated horse slaughter thanks to EU rules. This has not stopped a) a massive, Europe-wide scandal in which horsemeat was passed off as beef, b) the exposure of false paperwork in slaughter-bound horses, c) horses that have been treated with drugs that should be banned from the food chain still making it into the food chain, d) record numbers of abandoned and neglected horses that have to be taken in by charities or local authorities  – it’s often the “meat herds” that are kept in the worst conditions – and e) exposés of abuse in equine abattoirs. Oh, and we still have “worthless” horses and ponies, too.

Maybe farmers who raise horses solely for meat and follow the same sort of strict conditions applied to cattle or sheep get it right. But for horses that are dual purpose, slaughter is touted as a way of cleaning up waste material from a leisure riding industry, and this leads to loop holes and the problems described above.

UNFORTUNATE UPDATE 17/7/2017: Well, another horsemeat scandal in Europe busted wide open. Sixty-six arrested after police across Europe worked together to uncover an operation slaughtering horses that were unfit for human consumption. The horses had been treated with medication unsuitable for meat animals, were elderly or injured. The documentation had been tampered with and it looks like microchips were cut out of horses’ necks.

“Once the industry starts making money, things will improve”

Before the effective ban in the USA, Europe still bought American horsemeat. However, in recent years the EU has banned imports of horsemeat from Mexico due to doubts about its safety and welfare conditions. It has also asked Canadian plants to keep horses for six months prior to slaughter to ensure that they are free of drug residue. If you really are doing horsecare right, that’s six months of good grazing conditions and fodder, hoofcare, dentistry and veterinary treatment – and suddenly your horsemeat is not so cheap. If you sent your horse to slaughter because it was in constant pain, now your horse has to go without painkillers for six months. That, surely, was not the point of sending it to slaughter in the first place…

Maybe other overseas markets are less fussy. But “take our meat, it’s from randomly sourced, potentially diseased and contaminated animals” is really not a lasting selling point.

“It will create jobs”

Most people assume that horse slaughter was banned because Americans were oversensitive about horses being eaten. There were actually two prongs to the cessation – one was the effective federal block caused by suspending the funding for inspections. The other was at state level – Texas and Illinois residents were deeply unhappy about practices and lack of local contributions from the three surviving slaughter houses. They didn’t want them in their towns. When the ban was lifted a few years ago, many new slaughter plants were proposed and all were blocked locally by residents.

The jobs? Again, look at the meat industry in general in America. This is not a money pot that will Make America Great Again. It’s an industry that consumes low-paid, easily disposible migrant workers. And again, according to testimony gathered by Cathleen Doyle in California in the late 1990s, it was very hard for kill buyers to make money even with a legal horse slaughter industry in place.

“But if it’s well regulated, it’ll be OK”

The current US administration is laying waste to its budget. It is proposing stripping funding from things that no one thought would ever be defunded. Do you really think it’s going to splash out adequate cash to regulate a business that’s scattered (via auctions) in small locations across America, that’s part of a wider equine industry that’s so underregulated that we don’t even know how many horses there are in the country, that’s full of loop holes and entry points, and producing goods only for an overseas market? And a massively unpopular industry at that? To a higher standard that the EU? I don’t think so.

In over a decade of researching the history of horsemeat (I guess we all need hobbies), it’s become clear to me that there are two inherent scandals that recur over centuries of practice in the West:

1) That horsemeat gets passed off as beef, venison, or, in one case, foie gras.
2) That the horses killed for meat make for unwholesome eating either because they’re treated with medications, are sick, are elderly, injured or otherwise less than enticing as a food stuff.

I could find you umpteen historical instances of both of these scandals. Then there’s the recurring welfare issue of the process itself. Europe has been campaigning for over a century to stop the long distance transport of horses for slaughter and progress is minute, even in what must be one of the most animal-friendly legislations in the world and history, and long before the “sausage boats” to Belgium began, there were knackers yards full of starving horses. We’re not learning anything much from history.

 

Trump’s Plan to Turn Mustangs into Meat

Embed from Getty Images

The Trump budget cut isn’t well thought through. Firstly, there are no slaughter houses in the US processing horses for meat, and recent attempts to open new abattoirs have resulted in passionate local protests. Secondly, the horses could go to Mexico or Canada, but both countries are obliged to keep horses for six months before slaughter to ensure there’s no drug residue in their meat if they want to sell to Europe (and horsemeat exports from Mexico have long been suspended in Europe). This makes horsemeat a lot more expensive to produce. A Canadian plant has already closed as a result of this requirement. So who would slaughter these mustangs?

There are many, many historical antecedents for this latest move, some of which I mention in The Age of the Horse. It’s a familiar cycle full of themes that come up over and over. Here’s just one example, from the Bismarck Tribune on August 15, 1919:

Montana must exterminate its wild horse herds.

Washington dispatches carry discouraging news for those who hope to see the Montana wild horse converted into meat for hungry Europe. American commercial attaches have forwarded from France and Belgium to the American capital data indicating that the expected market does not exist. In the first place, the people will not eat frozen horsemeat. In the second place, horses consigned to the butcher must be slaughtere, within the cities or districts in which they are to be consumed. The Montana plan contemplated slaughter at some point in the state, with sale of the bi-products [sic] in America. It had always been supposed that a ready market for the meat would be found abroad. There is still another plan – to render the wild horse for his products and sell the meat for fertiliser. This, it is said, it may prove feasible. The wild horse has been a problem in the state for some years. The animals number hundreds of thousands and consume a vast amount of range. There is not profit in rounding up the beasts, since they cannot be sold, except a rare few. Hunting them, as well, is no child’s play. They are fleet and wary and the hunter on a horse has little chance to overtake them. Yet the beasts must go. Stockmen are determined on that. The matter was recently discussed in the state convention of the stockmens association and it was stated that tremendous herds of cattle and sheep could be maintained on the grass the world horses eat. The beasts probably are descendants of Indian horses. They are of the poorest stock and are difficult to domesticate and almost worthless when tamed. They travel in bands and are formidable fighters with tooth and hoof, when aroused or cornered.

Mustangs for Your Ears


Deanne Stillman’s Mustang: The Saga of the Wild Horse in the American West came out in 2008 and remains definitive. It takes you from the arrival of the first Conquistadors’ horses – like Pedro de Alvarado’s “bright bay mare” “good both for tilting and to race” and the grey “Bobtail” who was “fast, and had a splendid mouth” – to the politicking of the Bush years when America’s wild horses once more came under threat. It will give you some pointers about their fate in the next four years, too. Her next book, Blood Brothers, flows out of it and tells the story of Sitting Bull and Buffalo Bill. Simon and Schuster will publish in the autumn.

Those of you who like books but have to fit them into a life that includes school runs, commutes, housework, an exercise schedule and/or poo-picking might be interested in the audio version of Mustang. It features the voices of Anjelica Huston, Frances Fisher, Wendie Malick, Richard Portnow and John Densmore.