So wow, you get one injury and a lot of your focus for even writing about fencing and fencing-related topics is just completely shot. Whoops. But hey, we're back now and as promised I'm going to have another couple of fun times posts and yell about the London Masters of Defense prize fights, how they worked, fun things around them, and all of that. I've talked a little bit about them before (in this four-part series: one, two, three, and four) but I really wanted to focus in on the guild in general and the prize fights in particular here, rather than as an adjunct topic to the sizes of raised stages. Also, honestly, they're a fun thing to read about and also for me to write about here, and I wanted to spend some time just going on about a fun topic today. I'm going to focus solely on the prize fights in this entry; I think in a subsequent post I'll yell about the guild as a guild, talk about how it worked, poke more at their structure, and talk about the money.
Sources for people to hunt down and read! I'm pulling from a few books and articles here. The first is "The Noble Science" by Herbert Berry. This is a transcription and study of the Sloane Ms. 2530, which are some papers pertaining to the Masters of Defense, covering about 1540 to 1590. If you can find a copy, I highly recommend this. It's a fantastic resource. Next is "The English Master of Arms" by J.D. Aylward. The sections which cover the time period of interest are just wonderful. Finally, "Methods and Practice of Elizabethan Swordplay" by Craig Turner and Tony Soper. This is less about the time period in general and focuses more on presenting the manuals of di Grassi, Saviolo, and Silver for stage combat purposes, but it still has some good stuff in here.
For easily found online articles and resources we have "Public Fencing Contests on the Elizabethan Stage" and "The Schools of Defense in Elizabethan London" both of which are available on JSTOR. (Herbert Berry also has a handful of articles there, focusing primarily on playhouses. Not directly relevant here, but really good reads!)
Getting to it, then!
In this context, prize fights were fought because they were a requirement of advancement in the London Masters of Defense. There were four ranks in the guild - Scholar, Free Scholar, Provost, and Master. (There were four Ancient Masters who were the heads of the guild, but we don't have any record about if or how they were replaced over time.) When someone decided that they wanted to go learn the noble science and became a student, they were administered an oath and admitted to the guild as a Scholar. (There was some entertaining financial rigmarole around this, which I'll get into in another post.) At this point, they'd study under that master for an indeterminate period of time; there's no specific time laid out that a scholar was required to study before they could challenge to become free scholars.
When a scholar felt as though they were ready to become a free scholar, they would first go to their master and ask permission to hold a prize fight. Their master was supposed to contact the four ancient masters of the guild and let them know of the scholar's intent. At that point, the ancient masters would set up a private test within a school where the scholar would be required to defeat six other scholars, specifically with the back sword and longsword. This private test is not a requirement we see for the later prize fights but let's be honest, we can all think of newer fencers who would absolutely have tried to rush ahead with a public display before they were ready. Assuming the scholar passed that test to the satisfaction of the ancient masters the scholar would be told what days he would play his prize. The first day would involve the longsword against whatever scholars wished to fight, and the second day would have whichever other weapons the ancient masters decided upon. Sword and buckler were the most common, but staff and backsword also showed up in the records we have. Afterwards the ancient masters would confer and decide whether or not to promote the scholar.
Assuming the scholar was promoted to free scholar, they would pay whatever dues were owed to the guild and not be permitted to fight their prize for provost within seven years. Despite this restriction, the Sloane manuscript notes a number of folks who fought their provost's prize well before the seven years were up, though I don't know of any source explaining how those came to pass. I'm assuming that money talks, but that's pure speculation on my part.
Things would get more interesting when the free scholar sought to play for provost. Just like the last go-round, the free scholar would ask his master's permission to fight the prize and the four ancient masters would set the day and location. At that point, it was up to the free scholar to notify all provosts who lived within 60 miles of the prize fight's location, and they would owe a fine to the guild for each provost not notified. While provosts who lived within 20 miles of the prize fight traveled on their own dime, any provost farther away would have half their travel costs paid by the free scholar. In the section describing how the Provost's prize was to be played, the Sloane manuscript states that the free scholar would play at the two handed sword, back sword, and staff but the summaries of a number of prize fights list a number of different weapons used. Sometimes fewer than those three were used and sometimes more; I presume it was up to the ancient master who was overseeing that particular prize being fought. As before, the ancient masters discussed the prize fights and decided whether or not to promote the free scholar.
Again, assuming the free scholar was promoted to provost, they were not to be allowed to fight their master's prize for seven more years. Also, again, there are a number of people who fought their provost's prize well before the required seven years between free scholar and provost. Maybe the idea of seven years between ranks was more a guideline than a hard and fast rule?
Moving up to master was much the same as moving to provost. He would approach the four ancient masters, and they would set the day. The provost would then give warning at least eight weeks in advance to all masters who lived within 40 miles of the prize fight's location. The page listing the order for the master's prize says that the weapons would be the two handed sword, bastard sword, back sword, and the rapier and dagger. As with the provost's prize, in actuality there were some variations in the weapons used. While there was no further rank to challenge for, the restriction at this point was that the new master could not open up a school of their own for a year and a day after they were promoted.
Interestingly, though perhaps not surprisingly, at each of the ranks of free scholar, provost, and master, there are recorded instances of the prize fight not being fought at all, but the rank being awarded by an agreement of the four ancient masters. There aren't any details about the reasons for these, so it is up to us to speculate as to why this was the case.
Finally, the Sloane manuscript lists a number of challenges which were fought before the Crown. These weren't prize fights, but presumably displays of skill which the Crown had to attend as part of the job; I don't think this was a specific indication of royal favor beyond "this is one of the guilds in London and the Crown is attending this function" or something similar, mostly because the London Masters weren't nobility or the like, but were middle-class tradesmen.
That's the quick and dirty discussion of the prize fights themselves. In the next couple posts, I want to look at some other issues in and around the guild - the duties and restrictions on the various ranks, as well as some of the problems they had in getting the prize fights set up. I also want to touch on what I've been able to figure out of some of the economics that were in play.
