I have some friends who love horses who will appreciate this passage, I'm sure. Coincidentally, GKC's father, Edward Chesterton (1841-1922) was known as..."Mister Ed" :-)
______________
George Wyndham once told me that he had seen
one of the first aeroplanes rise for the first time and it
was very wonderful but not so wonderful as a horse allowing
a man to ride on him. Somebody else has said that a fine man
on a fine horse is the noblest bodily object in the world.
Now, so long as people feel this in the right way, all is well.
The first and best way of appreciating it is to come of people
with a tradition of treating animals properly; of men in the right
relation to horses. A boy who remembers his father who rode
a horse, who rode it well and treated it well, will know
that the relation can be satisfactory and will be satisfied.
He will be all the more indignant at the ill-treatment of horses
because he knows how they ought to be treated; but he will
see nothing but what is normal in a man riding on a horse.
He will not listen to the great modern philosopher who explains
to him that the horse ought to be riding on the man.
He will not pursue the pessimist fancy of Swift and say that men
must be despised as monkeys and horses worshipped as gods.
And horse and man together making an image that is to him
human and civilised, it will be easy, as it were, to lift
horse and man together into something heroic or symbolical;
like a vision of St. George in the clouds. The fable
of the winged horse will not be wholly unnatural to him:
and he will know why Ariosto set many a Christian hero
in such an airy saddle, and made him the rider of the sky.
For the horse has really been lifted up along with the man in the
wildest fashion in the very word we use when we speak 'chivalry.'
The very name of the horse has been given to the highest
mood and moment of the man; so that we might almost say that
the handsomest compliment to a man is to call him a horse.
But if a man has got into a mood in which he is not able to feel this
sort of wonder, then his cure must begin right at the other end.
We must now suppose that he has drifted into a dull mood,
in which somebody sitting on a horse means no more than somebody
sitting on a chair. The wonder of which Wyndham spoke,
the beauty that made the thing seem an equestrian statue,
the meaning of the more chivalric horseman, may have become
to him merely a convention and a bore. Perhaps they have been
merely a fashion; perhaps they have gone out of fashion;
perhaps they have been talked about too much or talked about in
the wrong way; perhaps it was then difficult to care for horses
without the horrible risk of being horsy. Anyhow, he has got
into a condition when he cares no more for a horse than for a
towel-horse. His grandfather's charge at Balaclava seems to him
as dull and dusty as the album containing such family portraits.
Such a person has not really become enlightened about the album;
on the contrary, he has only become blind with the dust.
But when he has reached that degree of blindness, he will
not be able to look at a horse or a horseman at all until
he has seen the whole thing as a thing entirely unfamiliar
and almost unearthly.
Out of some dark forest under some ancient dawn there
must come towards us, with lumbering yet dancing motions,
one of the very queerest of the prehistoric creatures.
We must see for the first time the strangely small head set on a neck
not only longer but thicker than itself, as the face of a gargoyle
is thrust out upon a gutter-spout, the one disproportionate crest
of hair running along the ridge of that heavy neck like a beard
in the wrong place; the feet, each like a solid club of horn,
alone amid the feet of so many cattle; so that the true fear is
to be found in showing, not the cloven, but the uncloven hoof.
Nor is it mere verbal fancy to see him thus as a unique monster;
for in a sense a monster means what is unique, and he is really unique.
But the point is that when we thus see him as the first man saw him,
we begin once more to have some imaginative sense of what it meant
when the first man rode him. In such a dream he may seem ugly,
but he does not seem unimpressive; and certainly that two-legged
dwarf who could get on top of him will not seem unimpressive.
By a longer and more erratic road we shall come back to the same
marvel of the man and the horse; and the marvel will be, if possible,
even more marvellous. We shall have again a glimpse of St. George;
the more glorious because St. George is not riding on the horse,
but rather riding on the dragon.
In this example, which I have taken merely because it is
an example, it will be noted that I do not say that the nightmare
seen by the first man of the forest is either more true
or more wonderful than the normal mare of the stable seen
by the civilised person who can appreciate what is normal.
Of the two extremes, I think on the whole that the traditional grasp
of truth is the better. But I say that the truth is found at one
or other of these two extremes, and is lost in the intermediate
condition of mere fatigue and forgetfulness of tradition.
In other words, I say it is better to see a horse as a monster
than to see it only as a slow substitute for a motor-car. If we
have got into that state of mind about a horse as something stale,
it is far better to be frightened of a horse because it is
a good deal too fresh.
-The Everlasting Man (1925)
