"Horsemanship & Horsemastership" by Gordon Wright

[Barbara]

I am new to this forum and want to tell everyone how much I enjoy reading their posts and how much I have learned. I also wanted to suggest that my favorite, "so glad I have it, would not like to do without", book on riding is "Riding and Schooling Horses" by Lt. Col. Harry D. Chamberlin. I like it because it deals with the rider in thorough but simple terms.

My passion is trying to help preserve American riding history, especially that which passes from the Cavalry School at Fort Riley, in order keep the history available to more generations of riders. Because this is a project I love, I'm fortunate to have good books to research with, although I can't ever imagine having enough books.

I grew up showing as a Junior rider on the east coast starting in the early 60s and was lucky to be grounded in basics from an early age. I say lucky because it was the luck of the draw for me. Mine was not a horse family. But like most horse crazy kids back then, I was in awe of Gordon Wright and treasured my copy of "Learning to Ride, Hunt and Show".

I'll fast forward to the past few years during which I've been the most active in my search for information about riding history. I've been up to my elbows in "The Twilight of the U.S. Cavalry", "American Military Horsemanship", "The United States Cavalry, an Illustrated History", "Horsemanship and Horsemastership",(and Lou Di Marco's web pages and blog) and reread both of Chamberlin's books. I was attempting to do a chronological study. I went through Santini, some of Littauer and then Gordon Wright.

As I began to re read "The Cavalry Manual of Horsemanship and Horsemastership, Education of the Rider - the Official Manual of the United States Cavalry School at Fort Riley" edited by Gordon Wright - I had a sinking sensation that something was wrong.

The "Horsemanship and Horsemastership" which was published by the Cavalry School in 1935 is not a light read for someone like myself. I lean much more towards Harry Chamberlin's conversational type of writing, so I was very surprised to find that Gordon Wright's version of "Horsemanship and Horsemastership" was a pretty enjoyable read. And it seemed really familiar, so much so that I pulled out some books to make comparisons. I wasn't thrilled with what I thought I found and I hope that someone can help me with answers.

35 pages of Gordon Wright's book have huge amounts of Harry Chamberlin's text from "Riding and Schooling Horses". Much of it is verbatim and a lot of it is whole pages. In fact, almost the entire Chapter on Jumping is from "Riding and Schooling Horses". There is a small part at the beginning that is not and the remainder is from Harry Chamberlin's "Training Hunters, Jumpers and Hacks". 9 pages of Gordon Wright's book contain material from "Training Hunters, Jumpers, and Hacks". My completely un-scientific analysis came up with 79 entries that were from Harry Chamberlin's two books.

I don't know the back ground on this edition of "Horsemanship and Horsemastership" but I do know that there is not one single spot in the book, the forward or the jacket flap, that gives Lt. Col. Harry D. Chamberlin even the smallest recognition for his work.

I also didn't see anything that tells me how Gordon Wright was given permission to edit and publish "The Official Manual of the United States Cavalry School at Fort Riley".

In addition, while the information that's contained in Gordon Wright's edition is sound, it is twisted around and a few of the principals that are in the genuine "Horsemanship and Horsemastership" have been changed. And of course, Lt. Col. Chamberlin's two books are very compatible with the Cavalry edition.

Can anyone help me with the circumstances that surrounded the writing of Gordon Wright's edition of "Horsemanship and Horsemastership"? I am most confused about it and would be interested to read what others think about this.

Thank you so much
Barbara

[Pat Holscher]

I don't really know the answer to your question, but what I would note is that the Army manual, being a government publication, is in the public domain, and always has been. That being the case, any author would have been, and remains, free to copy the text and incorporate it into one of his own. Wright is noted as the author of a "civilian" edition of it, and what I suspect is the case is that he simply incorporated large sections of the public work.

Indeed, there would have been nothing wrong with that. The Army manual, as you note, is exceptionally well written in the operative parts, and very easy to read. This is also true of the Field Artillery manual on riding. Wright, due to his background, knew that and probably wanted to try to bring what were then newly developing aspects of riding to a larger civilian audience. In doing that, he would have license to use as much of the Army manual as he cared to. Indeed, we should be so lucky as to have somebody due the same today.

Again, this is only a guess on my part.

Wright's career was an interesting one:

http://www.showjumpinghalloffame.net/in ... ight.shtml

What's that have to do with Chamberlain? Perhaps nothing, but Chamberlain was a career Army man. Two of the participants here are very familiar with his career, and perhaps can give a definitive answer, but what I wonder is if the later editions of the Cavalry manual weren't written or heavily influenced by Chamberlain. Chamberlain likewise would have been free to use his own writings for a book.

I would note, once again, that the Army manuals are surprisingly easy reading. They do not read at all like current Army manuals on material subjects (TM's, etc) that some of us may be otherwise familiar with. They do include things that most civilian riders would have had no need to know, and the artillery one in particular does, so civilian editions and expansions would have been, and remain, valuable contributions to equine literature.

[selewis]

Another influential, early text that would pertain to your interest would be the "Notes on Equitation and Horse Training" from Saumur. It was translated from the French around 1909 for the Mounted Service School at Ft Riley. It has been reprinted several times.

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchR ... &x=55&y=13

Sandy

[Barbara]

Hi Sandy,
Thank you for recommending "Notes on Equitation and Training". I have a reprint done by Triton Press in Provo, Utah . I have to admit that I haven't read it yet and will do so in the next day or so. I'd forgotten I had it. I also have a crumbling copy of The Manual of Equitation of the French Army for 1912 printed by the Government Printing Office in 1913. I'm going to go through them together. Thank you for stirring up my brain cells.

Barbara

[Barbara]

Dear Pat,
Thank you very much for answering my post. I didn't know that that government publications were in the public domain. Public domain is something I should learn more about. Your answer is really helpful.

I agree that Gordon Wright's Cavalry Manual is a valuable contribution to equine literature. I had an email last night from someone who is in her 50s and still has a tattered and torn copy from her Pony Club days at Fort Leavenworth about 40 years ago.

Most of what is good today in American jumping horsemanship is the result of the work that was done at Fort Riley by men like Chamberlin, Guy Henry and the Army Equestrian team. George Morris, whom the public refers to as a legendary trainer, periodically talks about tradition and mentions that riders should read the classics of Santini and Chamberlin. Gordon Wright's teaching was based on the "Horsemanship and Horsemastership" manuals, and George Morris' teaching is based on Gordon Wright. The progression is interesting.

I'm a 'give credit where credit is due' sort of person. Chamberlin's "Riding and Schooling" was published in 1934 in the U.S. and 1935 in Great Britain- the same year that the Cavalry School published "Horsemanship and Horsemastership. Chamberlin's "Training Hunters, Jumpers and Hacks " was published in 1937 or 38. I believe, also, that Chamberlin was on the board for the Fort Riley "Horsemanship and Horsemastership' manuals, so there is no doubt that the books would be compatible. Chamberlin elaborated in his private publications and used a style that was probably not suitable for military manuals. "Riding and Schooling" deals more with the rider and "Training Hunters, Jumpers and Hacks" deals with the horse, much like the Volume 1, part one and part two of "Horsemanship and Horsemastership". Harry Chamberlin died in 1944.

Gordon Wright published "The Cavalry Manual of Horsemanship and Horsemastership" in 1962. The parts of "Riding and Schooling and "Training Hunters, Jumpers, and Hacks" that he included in his work aren't part of the 1935 Fort Riley edition of "Horsemanship and Horsemastership". I'd be happy to know if there were any other editions after 1935 that included this information. As far as I have seen the additions are Chamberlin's work from his 2 books. Wright even included Chamberlin's foot notes verbatim.

Normally when an author uses another author's work credit is given, especially when the pieces are from copyrighted publications. In the 1934 edition of "Riding and Schooling Horses", the copyright is held by Mrs. Helen B. Chamberlin. I don't know her history or the history of her estate.

I hope to find that Gordon Wright and Harry Chamberlin (or his wife) had made an agreement to collaborate and that leaving credits off for Chamberlin's work was an accident on the part of Gordon Wright. Call me naive but I like my heroes to stay on their pedestals.

I really appreciate your indulgence and help on this. Thank you.

Barbara

[Pat Holscher]

Barbara, by the way, welcome to the group. There's a lot of interest in military riding and the US Military Seat here, as you can tell, and we're glad to have you on board.

[Pat Holscher]

Gordon Wright published "The Cavalry Manual of Horsemanship and Horsemastership" in 1962. The parts of "Riding and Schooling and "Training Hunters, Jumpers, and Hacks" that he included in his work aren't part of the 1935 Fort Riley edition of "Horsemanship and Horsemastership". I'd be happy to know if there were any other editions after 1935 that included this information. As far as I have seen the additions are Chamberlin's work from his 2 books. Wright even included Chamberlin's foot notes verbatim.

The Army issued another edition of Horsemanship and Horsemastership in, I believe, 1937, and yet another in 1941. I don't know, however, if the text of either departs from the 1935 edition

However, you will find that the Army also issued a seperate text just on the military seat in this time frame. We have an online edition of that up here, and I'll bump it up when I get a chance.

I'd also recommend the Field Artillery Manual on equitation from this period. It's very interesting and includes the same riding information that the Cavalry manual does. The artillery branch was, of course, also a mounted service. I actually like the Field Artillery manual a little better, and the illustrations, in my opinion, are better. I believe that Jim Ott includes the Field Artillery illustrations in the appendix of his book, which you note having.

Finally, as you no doubt already know, the Army made an effort to combine "new media" with instruction, and put out a riding instructional film. This is interesting in that it comes late in the day, so it reflects the late views on the military seat.

On the lack of attribution on the military texts, I think this sort of reflects the standard of that day. For whatever reason, the Army texts are often quite silent as to who contributed to them. Perhaps more oddly, there were a series of pre World War Two books (going back to about 1900) on various topics which were written by Army officers which often very heavily incorporate text from other similiar works without attribution. These are private efforts, but were quasi official, and this simply seems to have been the practice at the time.

[Pat Holscher]

Here's on the on line (here) text noted:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3921

There's a bunch of military seat threads, some including references to publications, on our forums. When I get a chance, I'll bump some of them up.

[Barbara]

Dear Pat,
I wanted to thank you for all of your very kind help and suggestions. I apologize for not thanking you sooner. I have been over coming the challenges of a new computer. My husband decided it was time for me to have a lap top and then I decided to purchase a Mac after all these years on a PC. It's been a double learning curve to say the least.

During this time I scanned the French Cavalry Manual 1912 into my computer with the intention of making it available as a free down load from my blog U.S. Horsemanship. Obviously it isn't the same as having an original copy but I hope by making it a free down load I may expose some people who would otherwise not have the opportunity. I have a few things to finish before it goes on the blog . I'd be happy to post here when it's ready, if anyone is interested. The nice thing about a free download is that you can mark it up and not feel badly!

Also the blogs have gotten new homes on their own servers and consequently they have new addresses U.S Horsemanship is http://ushorsemanship.com/ and the Riding Instructor is http://theridinginstructor.net/ . Thank you so much for posting about the sites. I should go to your post and put the new urls in. It's been really great to have them on our own server and has kept me busy.

Well I'm taking the long way around to my point. I wanted to tell you that as I went through the French Cavalry Manual I was reminded of what you said about the sharing of the writings. Some of what Chamberlin has written in his books was right there in the French Cavalry Manual!

On another note, but still concerning the French Cavalry Manual... I'm trying to formulate a particular thought regarding the type of dressage that men like Chamberlin experienced when they were at Saumur. I don't believe it is the same type of dressage that we are seeing in the show ring today, especially at the higher levels. I believe James Otteveare indicated in "American Military Horsemanship" that the dressage of the military horse was not highly collected. I see a danger to the understanding of U.S. Horsemanship in the way current classical dressage is being added to our horsemanship. I know I'm not explaining this well, which is proof to me that I need more input to actually get a hold of this thought . But just as the show ring hunter/jumper/equitation rider has departed from the original roots in jumping to the strange crest release (and other fashions), I see those that use dressage (eventing, show jumping, etc) and actual dressage going back to the high collection almost (but not quite) of the baroque period. It's not the dressage itself that bothers me. It is that this dressage is a "new comer" to America. It's not the dressage training that I believe was brought back from Saumur in the early part of the 20th century. I'd like to formulate this thought in order to preserve the connection and the order that was taught at Fort Riley. I'd like "save" information about this important part of our riding history. I realize the topic has a lot of avenues it can go down and I'm not looking to get a debate started about current dressage trends but I'd be very pleased to learn more about the dressage theories that came from Saumur to Fort Riley.

Thank you!
Barbara

[selewis]

Barbara;
I stand to be corrected on this, but if I understand you correctly I think that you are confusing method and degree. The European riding masters at the highest level of training rode with a high degree of collection. At Hanover, the Cadre Noir in Saumur, and Pinerolo and Tor d' Quinto in Italy, the Americans would have been exposed to High School riding that was very similar to what you see today. My copy of Jim's book is out on loan, as is Chamberlin, but if you carefully reread him I think that you will find that what he is talking about is the French method of schooling the horse, which was adopted in large part by the US Cavalry: the aids and the progression of exercises employed, not the degree of collection desired or obtained. In a short sentence towards the end one of his books Chamberlin also states as much: something to the effect that Haute Ecole is 'merely' a continuation of ever finer and closer association of the aids and methods he has discussed. Leaving aside trends, which come and go, and come again, high school riding in the 19th century was every bit as collected as it is today, or more so.

For additional insight into where formal dressage thinking was at in the US in that era you might also want look into a slim little book that Ron Smith has highly recommended: 'An Analysis of Horsemanship' By Lt Col Henry Smalley. Along with being an analysis of horsemanship by contrasting the methods of Baucher and Fillis it also contains his own marvelous synthesis of all types of horsemanship from the cowboy and forward seat officianado to the highest level of Haute Ecole.

Sandy

[Barbara]

Dear Sandy,
You've made a really good point about confusing method and degree. I think you're probably correct but I want to ponder this for awhile. I'll carefully reread "American Military Horsemanship" and I'll take another look at Chamberlin's books.

I'm fortunate to have a copy of "An Analysis of Horsemanship". It has an inscription in it that reads "To Harry Williams from Henry who wrote it and Gertrude who fell asleep trying to read it. Henry R. Smalley Gertrude Smalley".

I have an interesting selection of books to work with and have tried to concentrate those that have to do with the change created by the forward system before I add the others in. Perhaps I need to rethink my plan. I have a lot to read still.

Thank you for replying to my post

Barbara

[Pat Holscher]

During this time I scanned the French Cavalry Manual 1912 into my computer with the intention of making it available as a free down load from my blog U.S. Horsemanship. Obviously it isn't the same as having an original copy but I hope by making it a free down load I may expose some people who would otherwise not have the opportunity. I have a few things to finish before it goes on the blog . I'd be happy to post here when it's ready, if anyone is interested. The nice thing about a free download is that you can mark it up and not feel badly!

Please do post that. We'll be looking forward to it.

On another note, but still concerning the French Cavalry Manual... I'm trying to formulate a particular thought regarding the type of dressage that men like Chamberlin experienced when they were at Saumur. I don't believe it is the same type of dressage that we are seeing in the show ring today, especially at the higher levels. I believe James Otteveare indicated in "American Military Horsemanship" that the dressage of the military horse was not highly collected. I see a danger to the understanding of U.S. Horsemanship in the way current classical dressage is being added to our horsemanship. I know I'm not explaining this well, which is proof to me that I need more input to actually get a hold of this thought . But just as the show ring hunter/jumper/equitation rider has departed from the original roots in jumping to the strange crest release (and other fashions), I see those that use dressage (eventing, show jumping, etc) and actual dressage going back to the high collection almost (but not quite) of the baroque period. It's not the dressage itself that bothers me. It is that this dressage is a "new comer" to America. It's not the dressage training that I believe was brought back from Saumur in the early part of the 20th century. I'd like to formulate this thought in order to preserve the connection and the order that was taught at Fort Riley. I'd like "save" information about this important part of our riding history. I realize the topic has a lot of avenues it can go down and I'm not looking to get a debate started about current dressage trends but I'd be very pleased to learn more about the dressage theories that came from Saumur to Fort Riley.

Thank you!
Barbara

This might make for an interesting topic in the general forum here. There's a lot to think about in there.

[Pat Holscher]

Bump.

[Joseph Sullivan]

Barbara:

It is generally accepted that most of the US Cavalry manuals up into the 1930 were direct translations of French ones. We sent officers to France for training, and we used their manuals. In the 1930s it began to change, as did some aspects of American military horsemanship. We developed a genuine national cavalry style of cross-country riding. The last edition is considered an American manual although it owed much to the French, of course -- and in a real sense, as American, Todd Sloan, is given credit whether due or not for inspiring the forward seat -- which was then advanced by the Italians and modified by the French before being handed back to America -- I suppose we influenced them, too.

The later civilian version was just that, a civilian adaptation.

I am not the resident expert on this. Jim Ottevaere has written a book on it and has also translated some of the French ones himself. Unfortunately, he is in the process of a very complicated move and won't likely be on line for some time.