Monday I took my first ride on my horse wearing a replica of a 15th century Burgundian gown. Sorry, I didn't think to have my camera with me. It would have just been one more "thing" to deal with, as my husband was going to test out his updated armet at the same time. Any how, I did this on a modern, western saddle. It is no small task to mount in a full skirt. There's no slit in the skirt, so I did what a lady in the USS told me to do.
With my husband Bob acting as valet, I unceremoniously hiked, thank goodness I was wearing jeans underneath, my skirt up and flung the mass of fabric over my left arm, stepping up on my 18" mounting block, I grasped the reins in my left hand and the cantle in my right, placed my left foot in the stirrup, and threw my right leg over. Once I was safely in the saddle, I released the bundle of fabric, letting it fall to either side of me. Bob helped me adjust my skirt. While I felt a lot like the Wife of Bath (Ellesmere Manuscript Canterbury Tales at left) with my legs on either side of my horse, it was not a "bad look", though I think I would have preferred the more lady like aside position. I was sorely tempted on several occasions to fling my right leg over that western obstruction known as a pommel. However, my biggest concern was that very same pommel, which I eyed constantly as I rode around the ring. I just had the horrible vision of the dress getting caught on the horn at some point and...well... horrible vision covers it pretty well and I had no desire to become a kite for my horse. Fortunately, nothing bad happened, but Phantom could sense I was nervous about something and the fact that the gown tickled her flanks, did little to ease my nerves as I felt her skin twitching.My dismount was just as lacking in grace. I couldn't do "around the world" and dismount facing out. I had to do it in the current fashion of bring my right leg over and slipping to the ground facing the horse's side. Just something about that pommel again and possibly getting that hem caught. I had no desire for a cowboy's death. Though that's usually involves stirrups and being dragged over merciless terrain.
It did raise a few questions:
I have to wonder how mounting was accomplished in the 15th century. The saddles were not like the ones we have today and I am relatively sure a certain level of decorum was practiced so as not to "flash a little leg". Women did not have access to the riding attire of later days. It was definitely the era of full skirts. I've added an image from the "Mort d'Arthur" from the Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris to show the aside pose. The manuscript is mid-15th century and the saddle seems to be a common form of regular riding saddle with "eared" cantle.So, I find myself asking...
Was a platform used? It is unclear as I haven't seen in contemporary (to the 15th century) art that shows a lady mounting.
Did the ladies companion give her a "leg up"?
Again, I haven't seen it in an illustration, yet. So far, I've only seen ladies already in the saddle and haven't come across any passages of etiquette for valets or companions assisting the lady in the saddle.
Or did they just do it themselves from any natural or man-made object that could be used as an impromptu mounting block?
I really don't see them just "hauling" themselves up there, even though there is a passage in "The Saddle of Queens" that discusses one lady's attendants being required to mount unassisted from the ground. I don't have the book to hand at the moment, but will dig out the passage and see what the primary source is for the comment, if it's available. Some early 20th century books weren't big on footnotes. *sigh*
It will bear some experimentation and probably a horse of smaller stature than my own mare to know for certain. Another thing to add to my "to do" list.
6 comments:
I recall seeing a Tempesta painting, which unfortunately is 16th century of an upperclass lady riding astride. She wore a full skirt, split in the middle, with slops, hose and shoes.
Having frequently mounted with a full non-split skirt, the way you did it is pretty much the only way to do it.
People also got much more uptight about seeing things like legs and underwear in the Victorian period. It may be that you're assuming showing a great deal of leg might have been a problem, maybe it was just accepted as part of getting on a horse.
The early 15th century version of the Canterbury Tales shows the wife of Bath in similar dress.
It's hard to really determine what the medieval mindset was concerning ladies of high birth, and what was considered a "taboo" level of viewing skin. There isn't a lot of evidence for things such as panties in the middle ages. Typically you only have some form of chemise and you'd pretty much have to throw it over your shoulder as well. I'm not sure exposing oneself was "acceptable".
Think I would go with the Wife of Bath and Tempesta's lady, I'd wear some sort of century appropriate biking shorts. Correct or not, there are certain parts of my anatomy that will not be in direct contact with saddle leather :-)
Fortunately for me, Historic Enterprises has come up with something that will help on the modesty front. Riding Under Gown. Not historical, but it works in a pinch.
And I agree about coming into contact with a leather saddle with nothing but air between it and me. ;) I will push historical accuracy only so far and that doesn't include going "commando".
Cheers,
J
Looking at your 15th century illustration on the blog page, I would make the call that the lady is riding in a planchette style sidesaddle. You can see both of her knees against the skirt and you don't see her feet, which given the skirt length of that type of gown, would indicate no stirrups, feet side by side on a planchette. The high cantle that wraps behind her is also another indication, IMO.
I liked the skirt link it would probably work well for you :)
I do have this particular skirt from HE. It does help.
You are most likely correct that the BNF image is a planchette style saddle.
Post a Comment