Violence in the Classroom: A Trial of Skill in Restoration London

What follows is a period account of a trial of skill between two English Masters-at-Arms that took place July 16, 1712. The article (though more of a review, written in a similar fashion to modern sports columns) was originally published by Sir Richard Steele (just five day after the event) on July 21, 1712 in the public British magazine, The Spectator (No. 436). Although at times a bit difficult to read due to the contemporary dialogue being used by the author, it is still insightful to the novice and learned reader alike. An aura of festiveness surrounds this account (as was often the case, many such trials were indeed held at village fairs) and tends help the reader catch a glimpse of what life was like for the people of Restoration period Britain.

Emphasis placed upon the two Masters-at-Arms highlighted in the account demonstrates the skill possessed by each individual and the tenacity and violence of their profession. Besides teaching the ‘Manly Arts of Defense’, Masters-at-Arms also had to uphold their credibility and station by accepting any challenges to combat that might be leveled their way. In was in this manner that Masters like James Figg (who was discussed briefly in an earlier ‘Violence in the Classroom’ article) were able to ascend the societal rank and attract the patronage of the higher classes.

Trials of skill held a significant role in the martial culture of Britain during the Restoration (and all other time periods as well). Through such feats, the martial culture was further defined and the national tradition of such upheld.

Trial of Skill, July 16, 1712

Being a Person of insatiable Curiosity, I could nor forbear going on Wednesday last to a Place of no small renown for the Gallantry of the lower Order of Britons, namely, to the Beargarden at Hockley in the Hole; where (as a whitish brown Paper, put into my Hands in the Street, inform’d me)there was to be a Tryal of Skill to be exhibited between two Masters of the Noble Science of Defence, at two of the Clock precisely. I was not little charm’d with the Solemnity of the Challenge, which ran thus:

"I, James Miller, Serjeant, (lately come from the Frontiers of Portugal), Master of the Noble Science of Defence, hearing in most Places where I have been of the Great Fame of Timothy Buck of London, Master of the said Science, do invite him to meet me, and exercise at the several Weapons following, viz.
-Back-Sword -Single Falchon
-Sword and Dagger -Case of Falchons
-Sword and Buckler -Quarter-Staff"

If the generous Author in James Miller to dispute the Reputation of Timothy Buck, had nothing resembling the old Heroes of Romance, Timothy Buck return’d Answer in the same Paper with the like Spirit, adding a little Indignation at being challenged, and seeming to condescend to fight James Miller, not in regard to Miller himself, but in that, as the Fame went out, he had fought Parkes of Coventry. The acceptance of the Combat ran in these Words:

"I, Timothy Buck of Clare-Market, Master of the Noble Science of Defence, hearing he did fight Mr. Parkes of Coventry will not fail (God willing) to meet this fair inviter at the Time and Place appointed, desiring a clear Stage and no Favour."

(…) James Miller came out first; preceded by two disabled Drummers, to shew, I suppose, that the Prospect of maimed Bodies did not in the least deter him. There ascended with the daring Miller a gentleman, whose Name I could not learn, with a dogged Air, as unsatisfied that he was not Principal. This Son of Anger lowred at the whole Assembly, and weighing himself as he march’d around from Side to Side with a stiff Knee and Shoulder, he gave Intimations of the Purpose he smothered till he saw the Issue of this Encounter.

(…) The Expectations of the Spectators was now almost at its Height, and the Crowd pressing in, several active Persons thought they were placed rather according to their Fortune than their Merit, and took it in their heads to prefer themselves in the open Area, or Pit, to the Galleries. This Dispute between Desert and Property brought many to the Ground, and raised others in proportion to the highest Seats by Turns for the Space of ten Minutes, till Timothy Buck came on, and the whole Assembly giving up their Disputes, turned their Eyes upon the Champions. Then it was that every Man’s Affection turned to one or the other irresistably. A judicious Gentleman near me said, "I could, methinks, be Miller’s Second, but I had rather have Buck for mine."

(…) The Combatants met in the Middle of the Stage, and shaking Hands as removing all Malice, they retired with much Grace to the Extremities of it; form whence they immediately faced about, and approach’d each other, Miller with a heart full of Resolution, Buck with a watchful untroubled Countenance; Buck regarding principally his own Defence, Miller chiefly thoughtful of annoying his Opponent. It is not easy to describe the many Escapes and imperceptible Defences between the two Men of quick Eyes and ready Limbs; but Miller’s Heat laid him open to the Rebuke of the clam Buck, by a large Cut on the Forehead. Much Effusion of Blood covered his Eyes in a Moment and the Huzzas of the Crowd undoubtedly quickened the Anguish. The assembly was divided into Parties upon their different ways of Fighting; while a poor Nymph in one of the Galleries apparently suffered for Miller, and burst into a Flood of Tears.

As soon as his Wound was wrapped up, he came on again with little Rage, which disabled him still further. But what brave Man can be wounded into more Patience and Caution? The next was a warm, eager Onset which ended in a decisive Stroke on the left Leg of Miller. The Lady in the Gallery, during this second Strife, covered her Face; and for my Part, I could not keep my Thoughts form being mostly employed on the Consideration of her unhappy Circumstance that Moment, hearing the Clash of Swords, and apprehending Life or Victory concerned her Lover in every Blow, but not daring to satisfy herself on whom they fell.

The Wound was exposed to the View of all who could delight in it, and sowed up on the Stage. The surly Second of Miller declared at this Time, that he would that Day Fortnight fight Mr. Buck at the same Weapons, declaring himself the Master of the renowned Gorman; but Buck denied him the Honour of that courageous Disciple, and asserting that he himself had taught that Champion, accepted the Challenge.

There is something in Nature very unaccountable on such Occasions, when we see the People take a certain painful Gratification in beholding these Encounters. Is it Cruelty that administers the Sort of Delight? Or is it Pleasure which is taken in the Exercise of Pity? It was methought pretty remarkable, that the Business of the Day being a Trial of Skill, the Popularity did not run so high as one would have expected on the Side of Buck. Is it that People’s Passions have their Rise in Self-Love, and thought themselves (in spite of all the Courage they had) liable to the After of Miller, but could so easily think themselves qualified like Buck?

As mentioned earlier, this account was originally published by Sir Richard Steel in The Spectator (no.436) on July 21, 1712. The account has been republished and the full text is available in both of the following sources:

The Spectator in Four Volumes, Vol. III London: Dent [Everyman’s Library], New York: Dutton (1907) 1967; p.348f.

Amberger, J. Christoph, The Secret History of the Sword: Adventures in Ancient Martial Arts, Burbank: Multi-Media Books 1998; p.187.

An Exercise in Satire

In the interest of posterity, I’ve decided to post a brief exercise in satire that was scribed (albeit hastily) by myself during a recent class lecture. So, without further ado…

Work for Writers -or- A Written Critique of the Poetic Form
by Ame Penn

We are told of the destroyer Dryden,
whom in creationism he supposedly abides in,
but engaged in the heresy of poetry was he,
that not was made ‘cept faux civility.
For this I say is due to naught
anything handy, but rather what is brought
upon the heads of those poets themselves
whom engage in written follies, those ne’er-do-wells!
Poetry cannot begin to obtain
the depth and respectability detained
by superior prose, written at length
in epic format, describing with strength.
The false art of poesy fails,
in this regard to spark imaginations and dwells
nowhere in the culture of art,
given from magnificent prose it is apart.

At first glance one can easily determine the blatant irony of this work, in so far that although it being a supposed "critique" on poetry it is written in poetic verse. I had hoped that this format would lend an aloof aura to he work and coincide nicely with my attempt at satire. Besides, given the limit amount of time I had to create this work, poetry is quicker to write than prose.

The intentional satirical jabs (or attempts thereof) are perhaps not as easily seen by the reader. Some may also find it of interest that the work is artistically labeled as being written by Ame Penn. The name, simply, is a rearrangement of the moniker, ‘pen name’. Obviously the first line cities John Dryden, but not in the traditional sense and certainly against his own theme of creationism through writing.

Lines four and eight allude to poets being uncivilized ne’er-do-wells. Reality dictates otherwise, however, as often the case was the poets were among the well-to-do upper class of a society or failing that at least respected and considered to be civilized and intelligent. Poetry’s more descriptive and expressive qualities are flamed in lines ten and fourteen, implying that poetry is nondescipt and perhaps a bit irksome.

One of the main articles of satire in the work can be found in lines nine through twelve, wherein a false argument for prose is made using epic literature as support. Odd though, that a good deal of the classical epics known to us (i.e. Beowulf, the Epic of Gilgamesh, Homer’s Odyssey, and Dante’s La Divina Comedia to name a few) are not written in a prose format, but rather utilize some type of poetic verse.

Finally, the satirical blow is struck in the last four lines of the piece. Essentially the lines read to the effect that poetry has no place in artistic culture, a rather ludicrous statement given that poetry is as old as prose and was (debatably) the more popular form of literary expression during many time periods.

Hopefully this little diversion of mine served to do more than soak up the reader’s spare time. If you have comments, please feel free to leave them.

Violence in the Clasroom: James Figg, Champion of England

"Here I am Jeremy Figg from Thame,
I will fight any man in England."

That cry went out to the public of London on a day during the early 1700’s. James Figg, the soon-to-be renowned champion of England, had just opened the doors of his new academy of arms, and was eager to prove himself and his art. Standing at an imposing height of six feet and weighing a solid one hundred eighty five pounds, Figg cut an impressive stalwart figure and by looks alone, could more than back his claim. Soon he would win great fame and garner a reputation fitting a true Master-at-Arms. Yet despite Figg being a widely celebrated swordsman, pugilist and all around supreme fighter, few are aware of his life before and during his reign as ‘Champion of England’.



Born in February 1684 to a family of farmers, life did not seems to hold the promise of more than the mediocre existence of the lower English social class for James Figg. The youngest of seven children, James was no stranger to competition from his birth. His parents, Francis and Elizabeth Figg, could not have imagined that there son, a native of Thame, would eventually rise to a position far from his origins and win the praises of his countrymen.

Hailing form an impoverished background, his family being proficient only in the field of agriculture, Figg had few means to support himself. At a young age, Figg began to learn what he would eventually come to call the ‘Manly Arts of Self-Defense’. Within a rather short period of time, he had gain a fair amount of popularity as a prizefighter and a frequent attraction at many village and town fairs displaying his skill at arms. After moving away from his parent’s home and using the money he earned from the prize purse of several fights, Figg settled in the Greyhound Inn, located in Cornmarket, Thame (a small suburb of London).

Despite being close to the metropolis of London, Figg was still forced to travel in order to maintain his popularity as a fighter and, indeed even earn his living as such. Figg was a staple of London’s famous (or infamous as the case often was) Southwark Fair, where he kept a grand booth where he could show off feats of arms and martial cunning. It was here that he first began to gain nation wide support catch the eyes of many upper class citizens. Such repute grew tremendously when Figg claimed the title "Champion of England" (for pugilism) in 1719.

Among those, was the engraver William Hogarth who captured Figg perfectly in his engraving suitably entitled ‘Southwark Fair’. In the lower right hand corner of the engraving, a gallant Figg sits astride a stallion, holding a basket-hilted sword. Later in Figg’s career as a prizefighter, Master-at-Arms, and champion, Hogarth (who apparently had come to know Figg personally) drafted the Master’s "hand bill" (an equivalent to the modern business card).



Several other prominent figures of English gentry called upon Figg as his fame grew, enlisting him as a trainer and tutor of his art. It was in fact due to this rise in fame and demand within the higher echelons of society, that James Figg opened his two schools dedicated to the most honorable science of defense. Although he focused mainly on teaching his skills, Figg still accepted all challenges and fought all comers, a fact only support his claim to the title of ‘Champion of England’ until 1730.

Both of the schools opened by Figg catered to the various martial needs of the English population. At both schools, Figg taught the noble arts of sword and cudgel play, quarterstaff, wrestling, and (most predominantly) pugilism. The first school Figg opened catered mainly to he higher social classes, where one could spend a sizable sum to have exclusive training with the champion alone, something considered quite an honor and very noteworthy. Yet it his second school, the famous Figg’s Amphitheater that drew the largest crowds. The Amphitheater was open to very citizen of England, no matter their level of social standing. Many disputes were also settled within the walls of the Amphitheater, so much so that it became known as place to settle disputes as well as to learn how to do so in a "manly" way.

Despite his celebrity status and devoted teaching schedule, Figg would often participate in regular prizefights found in the taverns, greens and town centers around London and it’s surrounding area. Such locations, the Boarded House of Marylebone Fields in London for example, featured fighters from all over Ireland, Scotland and England. Still Figg often drew his own crowd (and challengers) to such locations, often making regularly scheduled appearances.



During his career, Figg is said to have participated in over two hundred and seventy fights with only a single defeat. The one defeat was to an Edward Sutton of Gravesend. It was reported that Figg was ill on the day of the match, thus awarding his challenger the victory by not being found at his full potential. James Figg did, however, request a rematch with Sutton in which he undoubtedly won in the third round. James Byrom, a writer for the contemporary magazine The Spectator, recorded Sutton and Figg’s re-match in verse format.

"Then after that bout they went on to another,
Rut the matter must end on some fashion or other;
So Jove told the gods he had made a decree,
That Figg should hit Sutton a stroke on the knee.
Tho' Sutton, disabled as soon as he hit him,
Would still have fought on, but Jove would not permit him;
'Twas his fate, not his fault, that constrain'd him to yield,
And thus the great Figg became lord of the field."
- James Byrom, The Spectator, 1726 (full text can be found here)

Figg continued to teach the ‘manly arts’ and fight until his death. James Figg died of natural causes on December 8th, 1734 at his home on Oxford Street in London, England. To have lived a life within such a violent profession and not have been worse for it physically and to have died of natural causes, was true testament to the ‘Champion of England’s’ skill. At the age of fifty, Figg left behind his wife and several children. Later one of his grandsons would follow his path and claim the title of ‘Champion of England’ for himself.



Of all the newspapers that reported the death of England’s celebrated pugilist and the treasured son of his native Thame, one article perhaps lives true to the spirit in which his life was lived.

"Last Saturday there was a Trial of Skill between the unconquered Hero, Death, on the one side and till then the unconquered Hero Mr James Figg, the famous Prize-Fighter and Master of the Noble Science of Defence on the other: The Battle was most obstinately fought on both sides, but at last the former obtained an Entire Victory and the latter tho' he was obliged to submit to a Superior Foe yet fearless and with Disdain he retired and that Evening expired at his house in Oxford Road."

Needless to say, he was never forgotten in his native county of Thame. A portrait of Figg hung behind the bar at the Greyhound Inn, his home for many years, and was proudly displayed by the landlords years after his death. Upon closer inspection, one can find a note, written by an unknown individual, on the back of the portrait. The note, although short, seems to capture the essence of James Figg and reminds us all of who he was;

"The Mighty Combatant, the first in Fame,
The lasting Glory of his native Thame,
Rash & unthinking Men at length be Wise
Consult you safety and Resign the Prize,
Nor tempt Superior Force; but Timely Fly
The Vigour of his Arm, the quickness of his Eye."

Son of Dullness: Thomas Shadwell in Dryden's MacFlecknoe

John Dryden does little to cover the satirical target of his work, MacFlecknoe. John Shadwell, the self proclaimed successor to famed "comedy of humors" playwright Ben Jonson, is at once uplifted and mocked in the farcical epic that is Dryden’s examination of the "king of dullness". Although his works were no without their own merit (and are quite liked by many scholars for their homely quality), they did not approach the level on which Jonson wrote but fell far short of any such intended goal. Although a close friend of Dryden (at least until 1678 when political weal broke the two apart), the satire invoked easily covers this facet of the two writers’ lives.

The sense of mock epic used by Dryden becomes, at times, quite scathing in its false ascension of Shadwell before wittily smashing his name upon literary rocks. While the first few lines of Dryden’s poem all but echo the Homeric ballads, the true intention quickly becomes apparent in the text later one once more conventional satirical verse is undertaken. Indeed, even the full title of the work, MacFlecknoe: Or a Satire upon the True-Blue-Protestant Poet, T.S., drips with biting venom. Obviously the "true-Blue-Protestant" section of the title is a reference to Shadwell’s Tory politics. While the name within the title itself alludes to Richard Flecknoe, a rather untalented writer whom Dryden seems to also find ill-repute and claims passes on the tradition of dullness to Shadwell.

Building upon the sense of mock epic in MacFlecknoe, Dryden often alludes to classic literature. The devices of lordship, kingly quality and the resulting coronation of title are jokingly afflicted upon Shadwell to legitimize his claim to the "throne of dullness". Dryden also cites ancient Greek mythology in mentioning the poet Arion and the goddess Psyche among others. Even Roman history is utilized in his poem, namely by citing Augustus (the first emperor of Rome) in line three. Muses are also called upon in MacFlecknoe to further reinforce the aura of faux classical. Once again, the themes of the timeless epics are being used to lend a sardonic literary legitimacy to Shadwell.

What Dryden accomplished with MacFlecknoe, however, was more than a seemingly playful jab at Shadwell. Effectively, Dryden helped to define the genre of Satire itself and provide quite an exquisite example thereof. Shadwell may have been the "king of dullness" and thusly laid with laurels of sarcasm, but by utilizing not only classical convention, but contemporary wit, Dryden stole himself the literary throne.

Violence in the Classroom: Fists, Fortune and the Art of Pugilism

No sport ever held so many captive as the manly art of pugilism did during its hundred year reign (circa 1740-1840) in Britain. Perhaps it was the primal essence of man against man or the ardor with which the combatants threw themselves at each other again and again that drew people into the spectacle of the fight. Far from being purely a sport however, the art and science of bare-knuckle pugilism had wide ranging cultural impacts. In the ring it seemed that a great measure of equality could be found and the restrictions of social class removed. Essentially the story of pugilism is part of the story of Britain.

What began as a way to settle disputes between peasants and those of the lower classes, fist fighting became a form of entertainment and defense that almost the entire nation of England supported and practiced. Later coined pugilism, this ancestor to modern boxing was a viscous and harrowing pastime. This cruel form of boxing had not only sportive application, but martial application as well. Figures such as famed Master-at-Arms James Figg, among many others, opened training academies to those interested in learning the art of pugilism.

Granted that a set of fists were in the possession of every person in England, the use of pugilism for defense flourished. The popularity of such martial employment of the fist spawned counter movements that attempted to degrade the sport, such as could be found in the forward to the treatise on singlestick, Anti-Pugilism published anonymously in London during 1790.

Whereby Gentlemen may become Proficients in the Use of those Weapons, without the help of a Master and be enabled to Chastise the Insolence and Temerity so frequently met with, from those fashionable Gentlemen, the Johnsonians, Big Bennians, and Mendozians of the present Day; a Work, perhaps, better calculated to extirpate this reigning and brutal Folly, than a whole Volume of Sermons…
-Anti-Pugilism, 1790

Although the allusions to the art of pugilism itself as well as the more famous boxers of the period (Johnson, Mendoza, ‘Big Ben’) are at times quite vitriolic in such treatises as Anti-Pugilism (whose title even smacks of such ill will), little effect was seen on the popularity of pugilism both as a sport and martial art.

Pugilism’s martial side was often cited as a desirable defense against all unarmed (and even some armed) attackers. Several period treatises and manuals (such as Captain John Godfrey’s Treatise Upon the Useful Science of Defense of 1747 and Donald Walker’s Defensive Exercises of 1840) cover various drills and exercises designed to make one proficient in the art of pugilism for personal protection. Not limited to just written work, the Masters-at-Arms taught specific curriculums dedicated to pugilism. While producing people learned in the art of pugilism for defense, such schools also turned out National Champions in the sportive side of the art.

Despite the lashing out at pugilism by some members of British society, many turned out to not witness bouts but to participate in them as well. People from all levels of society sought to enter the ring, either for money, pride, fame, or all three. It was popular with those of the gentry to spar with the Master-at-Arms, teachers, and champions who were skilled in pugilism. Such matches, such as those played with John Jackson, the Champion of England in 1795, were viewed to be quite an honor.

Lower social classes were also drawn to ring, often times for the same reasons as those of higher social station. Yet for the poor and impoverished, pugilism also seemed a ‘ray of hope’. Much like gladiatorial contests of the ancient days, those of a lower class could make a name for themselves through display of skill and amassing of victories in the ring. Pugilism was, for the lower levels of British society, a rough road to a better life. This road was not limited to a specific race, many slaves won their freedom and fortune through the sportive side of pugilism. Black boxers, such as Tom Molineaux, even approached the level of National Champion and found themselves far elevated beyond the social rank previously placed on them.



The advancements afforded by the sport of bare-knuckle pugilism did come with a rather steep price tag though. Physically, the sport was demanding and often was quite violent. Unlike modern boxing, a cadre of brutal skills could be used. Before the sport was formalized boxers could employ such cruel methods as wrestling each other in ring if they came to grips, kicking was allowed (considered quite manly, even when an opponent was knocked down), "purring" (a slang term for tearing at an opponent’s shins with the boots worn by period pugilists), and eye-gouging, which was hugely popular with many crowds. Records even exist of pugilists growing their thumbnails quite long in order to cut an opponent with it during matches. Boxers of the day could expect to receive a substantial amount of damage to their bodies, no matter if they fought only once or for a living, no matter which side of a strike they were on.

Asides from the tolerance for pain that was required for participation in the sportive side of pugilism, physical endurance was also a necessity for both opponents. It was not uncommon for matches to last for well over twenty rounds, some even being recorded lasting as long as eighty rounds of cruel and bloody punishment. Often times, wagers and bets spurred matches and fighters on long after their safe limit. At times, a fighters seconds (or assistants as they would be called today) would actually hold up a fighter and manipulate his limbs into strikes in a particularly large course or bet was dependant on the outcome of the fight.



It was not until after Jack Broughton , the Champion of England from 1738 to 1750 and named the "Father of the English School of Pugilism", delivered a fatal blow to an opponent during a bout in1743 that any set rules for boxing were developed. It was Broughton himself that delineated the first set of rules and "refined" the sport. Broughton wished to distill boxing to an accurate science and as such advocated fair play and unnecessary violence. While fights still only ended in a knockout or resignation, the rules put forth by Broughton made fights both safer and fairer. Among Broughton’s rules were:

- the outlawing of strikes below the belt.
- prohibiting hitting an opponent that was down, (an opponent on his knees was considered down).
- wrestling holds were allowed only above the waist.
- a 3-foot square in the was drawn in the center of the ring and when a fighter was knocked down, his handlers had thirty seconds to position him on one side of the square to be considered ready for the next round. If they failed, or the fighter signaled resignation, the fight was over.
-to prevent disputes, every fighter should have a gentleman to act as umpire, and if the two cannot agree, they should choose a third as referee.

These simple rules were quickly adopted and remained standard into the nineteenth century when bar-knuckle fights lost favor to gloved bouts (gloves were deemed mandatory in all fights, as well as a number of other more contemporary boxing rules, after the establishment of the Marquis of Queensbury rules in 1865).

Patronage for pugilism was often found in the royal and upper crust families of Britain. Those of the gentry supported the sport with monetary contributions and wagers. In 1750 the Duke of Cumberland lost 50,000 pounds betting for Broughton against pugilist Jack Slack. The loss caused the Duke to expect foul play and ordered all boxing amphitheaters shut down after which pugilism was suppressed for the next thirty years of the Duke’s reign. Such a stigma actually did little to curtail the popularity of pugilism, it continued to find spectators and fighters if of lesser quality and discredit some aspects of the sport. It was not until 1788 that pugilism once again achieve its former glory under the patronage and attention of the three sons of King George III.



Proponents and opponents of pugilism existed well through out the arts life. The former claimed that the practice of boxing demanded strength, honor, discipline, endurance, courage, physical ‘perfection’ and respect for one’s opponent. Also stressed was the fact that it was nearly unique to Britain and, as a result to some, superior to all other arts. Opponents to the sport of pugilism often did not bother to refute the claims of the arts supporters point by point, only needing to cite the character of the crowds drawn to its spectacle and the state of the combatants at the end of a bout. With the advent of rules such as those put forth by Broughton and the subsequent change they brought to the sport, wider acceptance was found.

Race, as in other aspects of life, was an issue in the art of pugilism during the period of the sport’s popularity. Black fighters were not uncommon and many even journeyed from the United States of American to spar with Britain’s celebrated pugilists. Freedom was even found by British slaves in the ring after winning a series of bouts or displaying exceptional skill. Yet despite the opportunities it provided to the slaves, racism was still unfortunately rampant. Example can be found in the match between American former-slave William Richmond and the bare-knuckle Champion of England, Tom Cribb. The fight was widely publicized and drew a substantial crowd, in front of which Richmond lost the fight to Cribb (after which it was recorded that "the crowd was pleased that a black man had been put in his place.")



Other black pugilists, such as the African-American Tom Molineaux (who had been trained by William Richmond) ventured to England in search of fame in the ring. Molineaux, like his predecessor Richmond, also encountered the Champion Tom Cribb. Molineaux’s and Cribb’s fight of 1810 lasted for forty rounds in which Cribb was all but beaten in the twenty-eighth. An infraction of the rules was cited against Molineaux (speculated by many to have been racially based), however, and allowed Cribb a chance to recover. Molineaux remained the popular winner after the call, but had a turn of his luck and hit his head on a ring post, which severely effected his performance. Cribb went on to defeat Molineaux in the thirty-ninth round.

Thirty-second [Round]: Strength was fast leaving both the combatants - they staggered against each other like inebriated men, and fell without exchanging a blow.

Thirty-third [Round]: To the astonishment of every spectator, Molineaux rallied with strength enough to bore his man down; but both their hits were of more show than effect.

Thirty-fourth [Round]: This was the last round that might be termed fighting, in which Molineaux had materially the worst of it; but the battle was continued to the 39th, when Crib evidently appeared the best man, and at its conclusion, the Moor the first time complained, that 'he could not fight no more!' but his seconds, who viewed the nicety of the point, persuaded him to try the chance of another round, to which request he acquiesced, when he fell from weakness, reflecting additional credit on the manhood of his brave conqueror, Tom Cribb.
- Pierce Egan, Sketches of Pugilism, 1823

Britain’s participation in the conflicts and wars of the time left an indelible mark on pugilism and actually served to increase the reputation of the sport at home and abroad. Continental forms of pugilism were developed and became popular throughout Europe. Schools of boxing opened up that taught what were considered many different "styles" of pugilism, such as English and Venetian. The sport also gained a foothold and immense popularity in the United States, where its practice was viewed as "barbarous" by pugilism's many proponents in Britain. In some locations, pugilism even became the primary method of settling disputes of honor, whereas in times past they would have been settled with pistol or sword.

Despite the brutality of the art at times, pugilism succeeded in becoming Britain’s national sport during its ‘golden years’ from 1740 to 1840. As such, it helped to shapes the countries identity, not only for its own people but for the rest for the world as well. Although seen as overly violent by some, the expression of British life it created was unique to the nation and its people. Many attributes of British society could be seen in the art, and undeniably it was the very art of pugilism that composed a part of the foundation on which the same society was built.

"Less Filling" or "Tastes Great"

John Milton's epic Paradise Lost has often been criticized as being both "boldly original" and "deeply traditional". Various traits of the epic can be categorized within each statement and lend to it an affirming credence. While utilizing several traditional written vehicles, Milton conjoins them into attributes that were quite original during his lifetime and often unseen in literary tracts. Yet it is this combination that makes Paradise Lost so appealing to many scholars, both past and present. Milton, it seems, was able to take the best of antiquity, the tried and true methods of the old bards, and combine it with the nuances of contemporary thought through a form of brilliant literary alchemy.

Of that within Paradise Lost which is considered to be "deeply traditional", many examples come to mind. From the first verses comes an invocation to a muse, a device that had been used since the days of ancient Greece (and possibly before). While the muse goes nameless, readers may choose to confer the invocation to either Urania, traditionally the muse of astronomy or, as was more likely the case for Milton's projected audience, the 'Holy Spirit'. Milton also bases his epic around a theme and plot that is rooted in tradition and had been told and retold for generation, the story of man's fall form grace and subsequent redemption. Although told through various mediums and in various ways, the concept of a fall from grace and a redemption after trials and tests can be found in some form (be it literary, oral or illustrative) in almost every culture. One of the more specific traditional attributes of Paradise Lost is the use of an epic catalog to name all of the fallen angels (or devils if preferred to be noted as such) that reside in Hell after the descent of Lucifer. Such a catalog of rather minor characters lends a scope to the work that clearly depicts the vastness of the universe in Paradise Lost. The concept of 'hero' is also examined and realized within Milton's epic. Although it is not in the true traditional sense, Milton's hero closely follows all the precepts of the requiem for a classical hero.

That which is called "boldly original" in Paradise Lost was quite so during Milton's lifetime. The use of blank verse iambic pentameter forces the reader to not only browse the text differently but also to assess the information of the epic through a lens that somewhat diffuses contemporary literary convention. Milton's invocation to the muse also is changed somewhat, in that it is specified as a "Heavenly Muse" instead of one of the more classical names or simply left at 'muse'. This seems to lend credence to the theories mentioned above regarding the identity of Milton's muse. Paradise Lost also introduces the concept of 'Paradise within/Hell within) through the various major characters of the epic. In Adam we see that one may carry Paradise within themselves even through times of trouble and tribulation whereas in Satan we can see that one can also carry their own personal Hell within themselves wherever they may travel. Another idea of 'bold originality' that is used in Milton's Paradise Lost is his inversion of the classical concept of 'hero'. While still adhering to all classical devices, Milton manages to create and aura of heroism around the most unlikely of characters, Lucifer/Satan. Milton paints the canvas that is Lucifer, to depict a brilliant orator, a dynamic leader, a fierce warrior, and even an intelligent thinker. Even as Lucifer bends under that which is "good perverted", he still manages to catch the readers attention as the most easily discernable 'hero' of Paradise Lost. Perhaps the title of anti-hero would serve to better describe his role, but again it seems that the requiem for a classic hero is accomplished.

So which was John Milton's epic Paradise Lost? Was it "boldly original", "deeply traditional", or was it perhaps both? It is possible that what Milton created was neither, but rather some new combination spawned from the intermeshing of the two? Alas, only Milton knew for sure. So in a sense we are left with a conundrum, and it is up to the individual readers to decide for themselves what their personal view on the matter is. It is such views that are correct. For it is not widely accredited postulation, but rather personal beliefs that shape the quality of a work of literature.

Getting all ZEN in your hostile little FACE!

Obviously, I haven't posted the other two articles that were planned for last week. They are done for the most part (just some final editing and additions left), but having just arrived home from a martial arts seminar which started early on Saturday, I don't feel like typing a whole lot let alone moving. I'll try to get my last article of Milton's Paradise Lost and the second article in the 'Violence in the Classroom' series up by late Tuesday evening.

Milton's Rogues Gallery

One of the many conventions used by John Milton in Paradise Lost is the epic catalogue. Detailing the fallen angels turned devils who followed Lucifer to Hell, this catalogue can serve to give one a glimpse into the religious oppositions that Christianity faced. Although seeming only to discuss but a few of the older religions, Milton's commentary on the listed devils sheds a good amount of light on not only his own scholarly knowledge, but more importantly the vices represented by each in some way shape or form.

The origins of the many devils listed by Milton are not from a direct Christian tradition or mythology but rather from a sampling of the 'old world' religions from various cultures such as the Sumerian, Phoenician, Philistine, and even Egyptian. It seems that Milton was using each devil as a definition of the vice of each of the old non-Christian cultures. An example can be found in the passage describing the devil Moloch, a deity that was worshipped among the Israelites.

First Moloch, horrid King besmear'd with blood
Of human sacrifice, and parents tears,
Though for the noyse of Drums and Timbrels loud
Thir childrens cries unheard, that past through fire
To his grim Idol.
-John Milton, Paradise Lost, Book I

Moloch, it seems, defines the concept of idolatry and the maddening sacrifices associated with it. Even the word 'Moloch' means 'king' by itself, which lends further credence to his ties to idolatry, a vice which the Bible noted as being particularly profound among the Israelites.

Among the many other pre-Christian deities mentioned as Lucifer's devils, are a particularly odd trio. The Egyptian gods Osiris, Isis and Orus are mentioned by named and by Milton, who it seems went to great lengths just to include reference to ancient mythology. Still, the naming of these old gods serves a purpose. As with the other devils, a particular vice can be associated with the named Egyptian gods. Milton writes,

After these appear'd
A crew who under Names of old Renown,
Osiris, Isis, Orus and their Train
With monstrous shapes and sorceries abus'd
Fanatic Egypt and her Priests, to seek
Thir wandring Gods disguis'd in brutish forms
Rather then human.
-John Milton, Paradise Lost, Book I

It appears that Milton uses the Egyptian gods to examine the concept of false gods and the fallacy of polytheism. Milton actually highlights to the reader that the supposed gods are "disguis'd in brutish forms rather then human.", a description which greatly distances them from any likeness to God in both power and description. Milton is creating beasts out of the older deities of the world's religions.

Several other devils are listed and detailed in Milton's epic. The catalogue of Lucifer's minions spans a good deal of book one of Paradise Lost and subsequently is quite important to understanding the hierarchy in Hell. Ranging from the Philistinian Dagon to the Sumerian Thammuz, the listing of devils is quite expansive and for each a specific representative vice can be discerned. It may seem odd that Milton devotes so much time to the side of darkness and depth in detailing the legion of Lucifer, but in fact it is perhaps essential to the development of his epic by setting the stage for the Council in Hell.

Tyranny of Heaven: When Choice is No Choice

In John Milton's Paradise Lost, God grants that without choice mankind is not the creation he wishes them to be. It is choice that is the supposed defining characteristic of mankind that is bestowed by God. Yet what an odd thing choice is, at least in the biblical sense. Free will and the exercise thereof are the key element to the human side of Milton's work and the theme therein. Milton's theme of choice and free will, however, is flawed on a fundamental level. The genesis of this flaw resides in the biblical concept of an 'all-knowing God' and his ultimate plan for the world that he created.

To define choice, is simply to state that one has absolute and unquestioned freedom over their own actions, thought and emotions, essentially over their every existence and all that makes one human. To use this definition then, it can be quickly seen that there would be no such concept as 'choice' or 'free will', at least in Milton's epic. The concept of an all-knowing God flies in the face of choice. For to be all knowing would mean that the outcomes of every event in the life of even a single human would have already been determined and set to a certain parameter, from which no change could occur.

Not even Milton's God himself is free to choose. Once again, the idea of an all-knowing being creates a roadblock. Not only would God know all the decisions of man, but in an odd divine way, he would know all of decisions as well, effectively setting himself on a set course. In Milton's universe, there is no choice, only the hope false choice provides. But is it a hope that can change anything? Such a question does indeed raise many more such questions and begs to break the cycle of 'no choice'.

Simply put, if God knew what decisions you were to make and then you did not make that decision, would that be free choice on your part and an admission that God is not all knowing? Or would it rather support the theory of God being omnipotent and having already known your desire to change the outcome of a decision? Simple logic argues that although a 'different' course was taken, God would still have not violated his premise of all knowing and would indeed have been expecting such a decision to be made. Therefore, in Milton's work free will and human choice can never be exercised, even the free will of God can be questioned if not outright disproved. It seems that as humans, the only choice to be had is to have no choice at all.

Brothers Falling to Darkness: Rebel Angels and Titans

Undoubtedly, the fall of the rebel angels into Hell is the paramount sequence in Book I of John Milton's epic Paradise Lost. Following the terrible battle in heaven, in which angel is pitted against angel, Lucifer and his cohorts are defeated and cast down into a place of visible darkness and everlasting pain. Milton ever so eloquently describes the fall and the locale of Hell thusly,

Him the Almighty Power
Hurld headlong flaming from th' Ethereal Skie'
With hideous ruine and combustion down
To bottomless perdition, there to dwell
In Adamantine Chains and penal Fire,
Who durst defie th' Omnipotent to Arms.
Nine times the Space that measures Day and Night
...
A Dungeon horrible, on all sides round
As one great Furnace flam'd, yet from those flames
No light, but rather darkness visible
Serv'd onely to discover sights of woe,
Regions of sorrow, doleful shades, where peace
And rest can never dwell, hope never comes
That comes to all; but torture without end...
- John Milton, Paradise Lost, Book I

Lucifer, chief among the angelic host, openly confronted God with his army of rebel angels, provoking a war that he hoped would gain him the place of God and the power associated with it. This however, was not to come to fruition for God and the might of Heaven opposed Lucifer and his masses in pitch battle. Such a conflict could logically resort in only one victor, with God and his legions claiming the title. It was the decisive hand of God that swayed the battle towards the side of 'light' and subsequently banished Lucifer and his rebel angels out of heaven and cast them down. Indeed, it is from the result of this fall that Lucifer (now metamorphosing into Satan) becomes the challenger of God as well as the inverse value thereof. This clearly defines and separates the two factions, following Milton's themes of light versus dark and height versus depth.

Milton, however, was not the first to use the device of a 'fall from grace' in regards to divine powers. Greek mythology is laden with the theme. In the Greek poet Hesiod's Theogony, we find a situation almost precisely similar to that of Lucifer's battle with God and fall to Hell. The difference this time is that instead of rebel angels, the Titans are the ones to be cast down. Hesiod describes the Titans banishment as a result of the defiance of Cronos/Uranus (the Father-god), rising against Zeus (and his fellow gods), and the ill-treatment of their siblings, the Cyclopses and the Gigantes (creatures with fifty heads and one hundred arms). This is in a way similar to that in which Mitlon describes his battle in Heaven and the fall of the rebel angels. Hesiod writes,

...and their spirit longed for war even more than before,
and they all, both male and female, stirred up hated battle that day,
the Titan gods, and all that were born of Cronos together with those dread,
mighty ones of overwhelming strength whom Zeus
brought up to the light from Erebus beneath the earth.
...
And on the other part the Titans eagerly strengthened their ranks,
and both sides at one time showed the work of their hands and their might.
The boundless sea rang terribly around, and the earth crashed loudly:
wide Heaven was shaken and groaned,
and high Olympus reeled from its foundation
under the charge of the undying gods...
....
Then Zeus no longer held back his might;
but straight his heart was filled with fury and he showed
forth all his strength. From Heaven and from Olympus he came
immediately, hurling his lightning:
the bolts flew thick and fast from his strong hand
together with thunder and lightning,
whirling an awesome flame.
...
...from their strong hands and overshadowed
the Titans with their missiles, and hurled them
beneath the wide-pathed earth, and bound them
in bitter chains when they had conquered them
by their strength for all their great spirit,
as far beneath the earth as heaven is above earth;
for so far is it from earth to Tartarus.
- Hesiod, Theogony

The fall of the Titans, as well as their battle with the gods is no less spectacular than that of Lucifer and his rebel angels. Key elements of the battle and the story even seem to be carbon copies of one another. In Hesiod's poem Zeus delivers the decisive strike that ensures victory for the side of "good" much as God does in Paradise Lost. After their defeat, the Titans are then cast down into Tartarus, a place eerily similar to Hell and also to the way Milton describes in as being "Nine times the space that measures day and night". In fact Tartarus is described as a place "as far below the Earth as Heaven is above Earth."

We can see that both Hesiod and Milton used the convention of a 'fall from grace' in respect to both of their own rebellious divine beings. Yet aside form that, they both use many of the same themes and in some places, even nearly the same wording and description of events. It comes as no surpass then that Hesiod's Theogony is essentially the ancient Greek version of Paradise Lost. By covering many of the same points Milton would over one thousand years later, one can begin to wonder if they were both inspired by the same thoughts or past history. Was it a sheer coincidence or was it a factor of similar beliefs? Only the Fallen Angels and Titans know for sure, and they are buried deep.

Violence in the Classroom: The "Manly Arts of Self-Defense" of the Restoration through the 19th Century

This article is the first in what will be a weekly series that will explore the martial culture of Britain, from the Restoration through the late nineteenth century. Focus will be given to over-viewing the traditional 'English martial arts' and their key historical personages using both period and modern sources. Examination of how these "Manly Arts" were viewed by, and inversely how they impacted, British society will also be a key theme throughout the series.

England (or Great Britain as it was called during the period known as the Restoration and even through the nineteenth century) is not commonly thought of as a place that bred violence. When one thinks of Great Britain images of a country subdued with discontent come to mind in the form of one of William Hogarth’s many engravings or the banter of Jonathan Swift. Yet there was a side to Great Britain during these times that is oft overlooked. It was a side defined by gentlemanly exercise and sportive violence. Long thought simply to be components of Hollywood films or swash-buckling legends, the martial arts of England were neither trite fantasies nor ineffectual pastimes.

It can be logically be followed that wherever violence occurred, historically a civilization would devise a way of incorporating it into society and becoming adept in its profession. There is no dispute that over the course of its existence as a nation, from the times of the Norman Conquest to the English Civil War and even to today, England has been exposed to a substantial amount of violence, be it through war, crime or infighting. It comes as no surprise, then, that there were many who lived through a medium of violence and to do so we required to becoming skillful in its application.

In Great Britain, the axiom could have very well been "Violent fools perish quickly, while violent gentlemen flourish". The art of defending oneself with or without arms was practiced from a quite early period in history. No exception to this was taken during the Restoration through the nineteenth century. As in times before, specialized schools were established to teach the Arts of Defense and war under the auspices of Masters-at-Arms. The same Masters-at-Arms also penned treatises and manuals covering the arts taught in their schools. These Masters-at-Arms were those few men who taught in the Schools of Defense and rested upon the laurels of intensive practice in their field and notable martial feats, earning in every respect the title of ‘Master’.



The British Masters-at-Arms taught a wide array of topics. Ranging from the unarmed science of pugilism (in lay terms, an early form of boxing) to the art of swordplay and even the use of firearms, an Englishman of the period could expect to learn that which might one day save his life, or as the case often was, his honor. Indeed, in the upper classes a strong knowledge and background in the Arts of Defense were considered a part of any education. Just as a gentleman was expected to know French and the latest mathematical theories of the day, he would also be expected to versed in the use of staff, sword and fist.



Yet the practice of arms and the Arts of Defense was not restricted to only the higher echelons of society. Both the lower and middle class also participated in the education provided by the Schools of Defense. Unarmed arts such as pugilism and wrestling were popular with both lower and middle class citizens due to the relatively inexpensive cost of the equipment being used. While swords were costly and therefore could be purchased mainly by those in the upper classes, a set of fists were in the possession of every man, woman and child. Pugilism actually became immensely popular with every tier of British society. Pugilism bouts and tournaments took on a gladiatorial feel to them and became modes in which one could reach the status of celebrity and advance through the social ranks. Other basic weapons, such as the quarterstaff and billhook (a farming implement often used as an improvised weapon) were also popular among those residing in the Britain’s lower social ranks.



Schools, such as the two established by the famous Master-at-Arms James Figg, trained people from every level of society. Although some schools catered mainly to the upper crust of society (such as Figg’s first school), many were open to all. Figg’s Amphitheater, the more popular of his schools, was visited by citizens from every level of British society. It was in his Amphitheater that Figg taught what he noted as the "Manly Arts of Self-Defense". These arts included pugilism, swordplay, and cudgeling (later to be known by its lasting English pastime moniker, singlestick). The title of "Manly Arts" reflected the cultural idea mentioned earlier of gentlemen being expected to be versed in the violent skills taught in schools such as Figg’s.



Although a layer of society unto itself, the martial culture of Britain during the Restoration through the nineteenth century drew the attention of many members of the non-martial culture. Artists such as William Hogarth, famed painter and engraver of works such as "Gin Lane" and "The Enraged Musician" commonly depicted scenes of martial violence and even illustrated James Figg’s business card! The satirist Jonathan Swift also makes mention of the popularity of the knowledge of defense and the art of arming oneself in his book Gulliver’s Travels. In the scene in which the Emperor of Luilliput strips Gulliver of his belongings, some of the items taken include Gulliver’s sword and the pair of pistols kept in his coat, a nod to the fact that as a member of the nobility Gulliver most likely had some knowledge of the Arts of Defense. References and allusions to the Arts of Defense can be found throughout period artworks and texts with but a little examination.

The "Manly Arts of Self-Defense" were an intrinsic part of Britain during the Restoration through the nineteenth century. Their pervasive influence could be seen almost everywhere in Britain and were commonly alluded to in many of the popular artworks and literature of the day. Although born of conflict, the Arts of Defense were equally acceptable in the prestige of court life or on in the dynamic street markets. It was their wide applicability, by all classes, that lent to their longevity and popularity. Through which it can be seen they were an essential piece of English society that undoubtedly helped to shape the culture into what it had been, what it was and what it would be.