will do, so to speak, all the movements without the help of the " aids, " it being sufficient to indicate to him what he has got to do, by the slightest approach of the leg, with the reins slack on his neck. In fact, this is a question of nuances (minute differences) : but all art is made up of nuances.

Be that as it may ; but since Baucher acknowledges that he could get only the "equilibrium of the second kind" (incomplete rassembler), I am justified in thinking that my school horses are superior to his ; because, for the last ten years, I have obtained "equilibrium of the first kind " (complete rassembler). I hasten to add that, thanks to Baucher, I succeeded in finding this rassembler, which is possible only when the head and neck are kept very high. Also, when I say that my school horses are superior to those of the illustrious master, I do not pretend that they were more precise in their movements than his, which were perfectly correct. I wish simply to say that I obtained the same school movements in as good form as my learned predecessor, but with greater elevation of head, neck, and limbs ; that is to say, with more complete equilibrium, which consequently required less effort, and above all things with more impulsion.

In his books on equitation, Baucher said little about riding in the open. This was an evident omission.

The fact is that Baucher never rode outside. Without being his pupil, I followed and studied him during his journeys to Austria, Italy, Switzerland, etc., from 1847 to 1850, But during these three years I never saw him go out on horseback. It has been very incorrectly stated that his seat in the saddle was weak, and for this reason he was afraid to ride hacking or hunting. I admit that he was not such a fine rough rider, and had not such a strong seat as the Count d'Aure, but that does not prove he was afraid to ride outside. The fact that he broke many horses proves that he had a strong seat ; because there are always more or less violent struggles during break-