She's a Knockout!

by L. A. Jennings

  On July 1, 1727, Elizabeth and James Stokes were jointly challenged by the aforementioned (and assumed defeated) Mary Welch and her training partner, Robert Baker, also of Ireland. Although the husband and wife were challenged as a couple, they fought individually against their Irish opponents. In their challenge, Welch and Baker “invite Mr. Stokes and his bold Amazonian Virago,” whom they claim to suffer from vanity based on several “petty successes,” to fight on Monday, July 3, 1727. Elizabeth and James responded in what may be one of the most snarky and derisive comebacks in pugilistic history:

  We, James and Elizabeth Stokes, of the City of London, were of Opinion that by our former Performances, we had establish’d to ourselves such a Reputation, as would effectively have secur’d us from the Trouble of any Hibernian Challenges, but finding these Concomitants (as they call themselves) in Pursuit of Fame, are not susceptible of any Conviction of their Insufficiency to stand in Competition with us, but what they purchase at a very smart Expense, we shall for this once do them the Favour to comply with their Invitation, and hope they will have the Modesty to impute it more to their own Indiscretion, than to any Enmity of ours, if their imaginary Prospect of being Sharers in Renown, should be chang’d into a real Partnership in a defeated Combat.[10]

  In addition to being the European boxing championess, Stokes acted as an instructor to aspiring young pugilists. In the announcement for a fight with Mary Baker (presumably the former Mary Welch, now married to her boxing partner, Robert), there is an endnote announcing that “two of Mrs. Stokes’s scholars are to fight six Bouts at Quarter-Staff, between the Womens Bouts.” Although the details of these students, including their gender, is lost, the note reveals that Elizabeth’s famous reputation as a boxer positioned her apprentices to compete in the same large venue as their teacher.[11] Throughout the course of her career, Stokes primarily fought in boxing matches, although her skills with a short sword and dagger were well-known. Sword and dagger fencing matches were popular in England at the time, although boxing remained a highly practiced sport. The former soon fell out of favor.

  In 1728, Stokes responded to her most demanding challenge yet from Ann Field, an ass-driver from Stoke Newington. Historians often cite this challenge, not only because of Field’s humorous job description, but because Stokes was so assured in her response. The bout itself, held on October 7, 1728, was easily overshadowed by the clever and funny correspondence in the media:

  I, Ann Field, of Stoke Newington, ass-driver, well known for my abilities in boxing in my own defence wherever it happened in my way, having been affronted by Mrs. Stokes, styled the European Championess, do fairly invite her to a trial of her best skill in Boxing for 10 pounds, fair rise and fall; and question not but to give her such proofs of my judgment that shall oblige her to acknowledge me Championess of the Stage, to the entire satisfaction of all my friends.

  Field’s courageous challenge was met with particularly cutting remarks from Stokes:

  I, Elizabeth Stokes, of the City of London, have not fought in this way since I fought the famous boxing woman of Billingsgate twenty-nine minutes, and gained complete victory (which was six years ago); but as the famous Stoke Newington ass-woman dares me to fight her for the 10 pounds, I do assure her that I will not fail meeting her for the said sum, and doubt not that the blows which I shall present her with will be more difficult for her to digest than any she ever gave her asses.[12]

  At this point in time, the British news media published challenges like the ones between Stokes and Field but did not provide coverage of the event, nor of the aftermath of the fight. Sports journalism did not really exist, hence we have no blow-by-blow coverage of any of Stokes’s fights; however, based on the many challenges issued and answered by Stokes during her career, we can assume that she went undefeated.

  It appears that James and Elizabeth’s combative partnership was standard practice amongst the few female pugilists in the eighteenth century. They were often challenged as a pair, with Elizabeth fighting the wife and James the husband. Thomas and Sarah Barret challenged the couple in tandem in December 1728.[13] Elizabeth was once again challenged to fight in public, but this time it was her opponent’s husband who called out the famous English pugilist. Dubliner Thomas Barret, who claimed to have fought “six hundred-odd Battles,” brought his wife, “the fair Sarah Barret,” to face the “profound” talents of Elizabeth Stokes. Speaking of his wife, Thomas said that Sarah “has fought thirty-five Battles in Ireland, Scotland, and England, and was, never yet defeated, and does not in the least doubt but to have as good Success with this European Championess.” Elizabeth and James responded coyly, claiming,

  I, James Stokes, and Elizabeth Stokes, of the City of London, thought not to fight in Publick anymore, but being credibly informed both by Scotch and Irish Gentleman of name, of the Bravery of this new Irish Champion and Championess in North Britain; but I am no-ways surprised at this Encounter, and will display the Judgment of the Sword to their Disadvantage, my spouse not doubting but to do the fame and hopes to give a general Satisfaction to all Spectators.[14]

  Elizabeth’s career continued in the media through 1730. In May 1729, Dubliner Charles Wright and his “Scholar” Mary Waller challenged James, the “renowned City Champion,” and Elizabeth, “hitherto accounted Britania’s most puissant Heroine.”[15] In the most verbose and flowery challenge yet, Joseph Paddon called out the “two impregnable fortresses” of James and Elizabeth Stokes to take on him and his student, whom he “trained from her Cradle to the Toils of War.”[16] Soon thereafter, Elizabeth’s career ended abruptly, following eight years of combat.

  Elizabeth Wilkinson Stokes may be the most venerated female pugilist in British history, but she was not the first, nor the last, woman to defy gender norms and enter the boxing ring. The details of her personal life are, regrettably, constricted by a lack of documentation. Little was written about Stokes outside of the aforementioned public, self-aggrandizing quotes. If we were to base our estimation of the fighter on these documents alone, we may be quick to deem her arrogant, prideful, and snarky, but, as with many professional fighters, the boastful challenges and insults featured in the media were tools to generate interest, and thus money, for her fights. Elizabeth and James Stokes, along with nearly every other noteworthy fighter of the past four hundred years, relied on hype to increase attendance at their matches, which, subsequently, increased their overall earnings. Because of the limited amount of information available about Elizabeth Wilkinson Stokes, the greatest female boxer of the eighteenth century (and perhaps beyond) remains an enigma.

  Boxing Scholarship

  Boxing was undoubtedly a popular activity in Britain after scholarship about the sport emerged hundreds of years ago. A banner year for pugilistic scholarship came in 1813, when Pierce Egan published his famous volumes of prizefighting articles collectively known as Boxiana, and an anonymous writer produced the lesser-known but intriguing Pancratia: A History of Pugilism. Pancratia primarily consists of stories of various pugilistic encounters and is a wealth of information about how fights occurred in the eighteenth century. The author recounts a 1793 bout in Essex in which two women battled for forty-five minutes in a fight that was both violent and skillful. The women, with their caps removed and hair tied back, were eventually separated, but not until one of them had been so thoroughly beaten that the crowd feared for her life. Her husband, apparently more interested in continuing the bout than in his wife’s health, encouraged her to continue to fight.

  The author confesses that although he was an ardent supporter of the “cause of pugilism,” he did not wish to see women fight. He explains that in women, “it is the gentleness of their manners, and their acknowledged inability of defending themselves, that frequently excite [men] to acts of the greatest bravery and gallantry!”[17] Although the author was admittedly discomfited by women boxers, only seven pages later, he relates the story of a “well-fought pugilistic contest” between “two heroic females,” Mary
Ann Fielding and a “noted Jewess,” name not included. The fight lasted an astonishing one hour and twenty minutes, with Fielding, fighting with “great coolness and singularity of temper,” declared the victor.[18] It is doubtful that the author changed his mind regarding female pugilists in the span of seven pages. The earlier statement that men are made more gallant by female weakness may have merely been lip service or, perhaps, a method of bolstering his own fecundity. Regardless, Pancratia reveals that women continued to box during the eighteenth century, despite social strictures or a patriarchal assertion of machismo.

  Gender Politics of Eighteenth-Century Britain

  Elizabeth Wilkinson Stokes may be the most famous female fighter in British history, but there are a multitude of women who were just as tough and vivacious. Stokes figures greatly in the narrative of British nationalism and, thus, has extensive academic and historical texts dedicated to her memory. Other female fighters, including another Brit, “Bruising Peg,” and American Gussie Freeman, exist in historical records, but their stories are not as celebrated as the eighteenth century’s “Championess” Stokes, but before their stories and those of other female pugilists are told, it is important to establish the historical and cultural context in which these women lived.

  Scholars have written extensively on the subject of gender politics in eighteenth-century Britain, but this section provides only a brief overview to contextualize female pugilists. In his book Women’s Sports: A History, Allen Guttmann explains that some women who practiced sports in the eighteenth century did so at the behest of upper-class men, who enjoyed watching females compete in exploitative athletic endeavors. Young women were encouraged to compete in races wearing thin shifts, in theory to allow for greater mobility, but in reality, to appeal to male spectators. This bucolic pastime was popular in rural environments, but the crowd often included aristocratic men. Country villages and farms would hold days of games, races, and sporting events where the inhabitants could enjoy a day of respite from work while competing in various games and sports. Wealthy young men would attend as spectators and, in their capacity as local lords and men of power, watch young farmhands compete in wrestling or young girls enjoy physical activities denied to the young ladies of their own class.[19]

  Although women of the lower echelons of society were able to practice various sports during their free time, aristocratic women, for the most part, did not participate in sports competitions. Poverty-stricken women living in urban areas competed in boxing, wrestling, and other sports activities for money at the expense of their own safety and moral rectitude. Girls in rural environments seemed to participate in sporting activities for their own pleasure, but aristocratic women were unable to practice sports because of various cultural, social, and even medical limitations. Certain activities, for example, hunting or walking, were permissible for upper-class girls; however, the idea of a lady participating in rigorous activity was scandalous and lewd.

  In the city, however, these somewhat innocent, if sexually charged, events became seedier, as the participants were excessively poor and, according to many historians, “sexually disreputable.”[20] Yet, the women who boxed in the cities, especially London, appeared to have taken pride in their prowess and were duly praised for their skill and valor. In 1793, two women fought in a “pitched battle” for more than forty-five minutes.[21] One of the women was reportedly skilled in the science of pugilism, and she nearly killed her opponent, who was talked into fighting by her rapscallion husband. The newspaper reported this event without opinion and noted that it was the spectators who stopped the fight. It is likely that any random boxing match fought in the streets, whether between women or men, would have quickly generated an audience. Nevertheless, Guttmann notes, while male spectators watched women fight for a multitude of reasons, all of them were titillated by the voyeuristic pleasure of watching the bouts.[22]

  The practice and study of sporting activities became mainstream during the eighteenth century in the West (no doubt in the East as well, but that is outside of the parameters of this book). In 1801, Joseph Strutt published his history of British sport with the expansive title (typical of the time period) The Sports and Pastimes of the People of England, Including the Rural and Domestic Recreations, May-Games, Mummeries, Pageants, Processions, and Pompous Spectacles, from the Earliest Period to the Present Time. This epically named tome organizes and categorizes sporting practices in England according to the class of people who either played or watched them. Pugilism is listed as a lively spectator activity for gentry and commoners alike. Of course, the inestimable Elizabeth Wilkinson Stokes makes an appearance in the annals of British pugilistic history, as does “Bruising Peg,” a lesser-known but no less interesting female fighter discussed later in this chapter. Female athletes were still an anomaly in pugilistic sports, although other athletic activities attracted women from throughout the social strata. Running, walking, dancing, cricket, ice skating, shooting, and even yard games, for instance, blind man’s bluff, were popular pastimes for women with free time. But while feminine activities could include these popular pursuits, girls and young women were principally expected to prepare themselves for the prospective role of motherhood.

  Education in the eighteenth century, still primarily afforded to the gentry and aristocracy, taught women skills considered to be useful to the wife of an Englishman, which included needlework, music, dancing, and the art of conversation. Literary clubs in England and salons in France provided opportunities for women to enter into intelligent discourse on such subjects as literature, art, music, and education. British ladies, known as the bluestockings, invited men to join in the conversation, although famous literary critic and essayist William Hazlitt rejected the female circle entirely, explaining “I have an utter aversion to bluestockings. I do not care a fig for any woman that knows even what an author means.”[23] During his life, Hazlitt’s dislike of women extended only to these learned female thinkers. He did not anticipate that it would be his landlady, the apparent opposite of a bluestocking, who would be more disruptive to his person than the women of the salon. The landlady stored Hazlitt’s dead body under his bed in an effort to drum up interest in letting his former quarters. Although Hazlitt may have decried the intellectual circle of women as “odious,” it was he who was “odorous” in the coming years.[24]

  Despite the efforts of men like Hazlitt, education for women became a major political issue promoted by both women and men in the eighteenth century. In 1792, Mary Wollstonecraft published her feminist manifesto, “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman,” and forever changed the dialogue regarding women’s rights. Wollstonecraft’s call to arms demands fair treatment for women and encourages women to take part in the inevitable struggle for equality. Wollstonecraft knew that sports and physical fitness would be part of the fight, declaring, “I wish to persuade women to endeavor to acquire strength, both of mind and body, and to convince them that the soft phrases, susceptibility of heart, delicacy of sentiment, and refinement of taste are almost synonymous with epithets of weakness.”[25] In fact, Wollstonecraft argues that girls “should take the same exercises as boys,”[26] and with this declaration, the movement to integrate both sexes in sports education was born. Wollstonecraft herself birthed her second daughter, Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin, who later became known as Mary Shelley and author of the famous gothic horror novel Frankenstein (1823).

  As the eighteenth century came to a close, it seemed that women were closer than ever to reaching some semblance of autonomy within the male-dominated social order; however, the nineteenth century proved that the patriarchy would be bolstered by a new queen obsessed with family, order, and, above all, reticence.

  Nineteenth-Century British Boxing

  Female pugilism continued to be a sensational phenomenon, and boxing remained the primary sport in Britain, although many accounts of boxing in the nineteenth century had little to do with sport. Nineteenth-century British newspapers contain numerous accounts of stree
t fights, typically of the “dirty” variety. In 1832, a Mrs. Hemsted was arrested after biting the thumb of a Miss Thompson, who claimed to have lost feeling in the arm and a good bit of blood from her mauled phalange. Mrs. Hemsted had apparently been charged before with boxing, although it is unclear whether this was a prizefight or another street brawl.[27] The term pugilism, by this time, referred not only to boxers in a somewhat organized combat sport, but to street brawlers and toughs as well. Nonetheless, boxing was on its way to becoming a standardized sport with rules and regulations in the nineteenth century.

  A September 25, 1805, article in the Times entitled “Female Pugilism” relates a fight between “Miss B***r, sister to the renowned ‘Champion of England,’” and an antagonist with whom Miss B had argued on an earlier occasion.[28] The Times describes the bout as a “fair but severe and well-fought battle that lasted upward of fifty minutes” and ended with victory by Miss B***r’s antagonist. The article claims that both women appeared “well satisfied with the total demolition of each other’s caps, handkerchiefs, &c, and the scratches and bruises on their necks and faces.”[29] Perhaps the most fascinating part of the story is the final line, which states that, “Miss B. was seconded by her mother.” The fight between these two women was initiated because of a personal dispute and not because either woman apparently claimed to be a championess of boxing, which explains why their names are withheld. The Times was and still is a paragon of the English media; therefore, it is significant that the newspaper reported this fight nonchalantly and failed to comment on the bizarre nature of seeing two women embattled in the public arena. In truth, the article declares the fight “another proof of the heroism of British Amazons, clearly evincing that the courageous blood which flowed through the veins of our ancient countrywomen is not entirely extinct in the fair sex of the present day.”[30]