B D Finch Nov 14, 2019:

Odd I find rather odd, in this context, to criticise Paul's grasp of equestrian theory! It would be nice to see some of the pictures this text refers to, but even without that, surely the artists were more concerned about the religious revelation Paul experienced than about his failure to do what was required to keep his seat. So, a bit of artistic licence might have applied to how the horse was depicted too. I suspect that the horse was probably depicted as sharing the vision and being suitably disturbed by it. The pictures would be more concerned with religion, drama and composition than with riding instruction.

If you look at Géricault's "Raft of the Medusa", he does not betray the shipwreck survivors on the raft as scurvy-ridden bags of bones, which is the state they actually would have been in. He betrayed the survivors as muscular and healthy, because that enabled the viewers to emotionally identify with them. For the same reason, and because of the response he wanted to elicit, the depiction of the scene is (deliberately) historically inaccurate in a number of other ways too.

Victoria Britten Nov 14, 2019:

@Asker: missing word? In standard French it should surely be either "... cette profusion iconographique QUI se place..." or "... cette profusion iconographique se place-T-ELLE".

Wolf Draeger Nov 13, 2019:

The plot thickens @Asker, can you tell us what the book or essay is about? Horses, Saul's conversion, art? Because now I'm struggling to understand the point the writer is making and what horseriding manuals have to do with the road to Damascus. It's starting to sound very obscure.

I mean...Rule #1 of riding a horse is don't fall off—C17 art reminds us that Saul fell off his horse and converted—ergo The Fall and the apple—horses like apples—Steve Jobs—???